The Court emphasized that in cases where the maximum sentence is limited, bail should be granted unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

Order

09/06/2025

1. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. DGGI/INT/INTL/292/2024/-Gr H-O/o, ADG-DGGI-ZU Jaipur dated 04.01.2025, for the offences under Sections 132(1), (c), (f), (h)

and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum punishment to be awarded for the alleged offences is 5 years. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the petitioner is behind the bars since 04.01.2025. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025, Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India decided on 28.04.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed 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

24^th 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.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation during trial and the documents as relied by the respondent in criminal complaint/chargesheet are bulky, hence the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that the conduct of the petitioner is that earlier also on issuing summons by CGST Department, he did not appear for giving statements, hence, there is likelihood that the petitioner will abscond in case he is granted bail. It is further contended that economic offence may be treated as a class part, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Jain (supra) and the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this bail application is hereby allowed. The accused-petitioner-Mahesh Sharma S/o Shri Harishankar Sharma, shall be released on bail in pursuance of FIR No. DGGI/INT/INTL/292/2024/-Gr H-O/o, ADG-DGGI-ZU Jaipur dated 04.01.2025, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. That apart, the accused-petitioner shall also follow the conditions as under:-