JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

Second supplementary affidavit is filed and it is taken on record today.

2. Heard Sri. G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Raghuvansh Misra and Shri. Ujjwal Sharma, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Vikas Jain under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case No. 2924 of 2023 for offence punishable under Section 132 (1)(b)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Meerut vide order dated 31.10.2023.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Code. It is further submitted that offences as alleged are punishable up-to 5 years imprisonment. It is further submitted that no notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant and he is illegally arrested. It is further submitted that till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act. It is further submitted that the offences are compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.09.2023. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

5. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of one case no. 169 of 2021 under Sections 132 (1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132 (1) (i) of CGST Act, in which the applicant was granted bail by Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.05.2021. It is further submitted that both the cases are related to the offence which are compoundable in nature. It is further submitted that the complaint for recovery of the tax has not been filed till today.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for D.G.G.I has supported the order passed by the Session court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that this is second case of the same nature of the applicant.

8. After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) The applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Act;

(b) Offences as alleged are punishable up-to 5 years imprisonment;

(c) No notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant and he is illegally arrested;

(d) Till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act;

(e) Offences are compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate;

9. It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesse