Bail should be granted when the accused has no criminal antecedents, the evidence is primarily documentary, and custody duration is lengthy, per judicial discretion.

Order

18/06/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed amended cause title which is taken on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS-2023) on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with case No.AC/EWI/C/JAIPUR/2025-26/3172 registered at State GST District Jaipur for the offence punishable under Section 132 (1) (c) read with Section 132 (1)(i) & 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.04.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed in the matter on 30.05.2025. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that maximum punishment which can be awarded is five years. He relied upon the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India in Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025, where it was held as under:

“The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents.

We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances.

By setting aside the impugned order dated 24th January, 2025 of the High court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, we grant bail to the appellant. The appellant shall be immediately produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall enlarge him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the conclusion of the trial.”

Further, the cases of Vishal Agarwal Vs. Union of India in Special Leave Petition No.13644/2024 & Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India in Special Leave Petition No.8740/2024 and Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 621 were relied upon.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the witnesses are official witnesses and there is no possibility of influencing the witnesses during the course of the trial. He further submits that looking at the bulky charge-sheet, the trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose, so, the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Learned Additional Govt. Advocates have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there is allegation against the petitioner for making of bogus supply. He further submits that tax evasion in the present case amounts to 9.54 Crores, therefore, the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Jain (supra), Vishal Agarwal (supra) & Ashutosh Garg (supra) and considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.04.2025, and that the charge-sheet has been filed on 30.05.2025. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the p