[2025:RJ-JP:47873]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10278/2025 Nemichand Tetarwal S/o Purna Ram, Proprietor M/s Parveen Motor Aged 42, R/o House No. 29B, Path No. 7, Prabhat Colony, Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Accused Petitioner Is In Jc At Central Jail, Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Intelligence Officer Central Goods And Service Tax Dictorate. Jaipur Regional Office, Jaipur. Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Ghiya Mr. Mayank Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Standing Counsel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

26/1 1/2025

1. This bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with case No. F.No.DGGI/INT/28/2024-Gr-B-0/o ADG-DGGI-ZU-Jaipur for offence(s) under Sections 132(1)(a), (b), (f) (h) (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has wrongly been implicated in the present case and he is behind the bars since 11.06.2025. The investigation from the petitioner has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the tax liability mentioned in the charge sheet is Rs.22,95,89,054/- but the same is different in the show cause notice. It has been submitted that the maximum punishment under the alleged offence is five years imprisonment and fine; there are no antecedents against the petitioner as also considering the period of incarceration and considering the totality of facts and circumstances, petitioner be granted benefit of bail.

3. Learned Counsel in support of his contentions has referred the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC1678] decided on 05.12.2022 and drawn attention of this Court to para No.6, which is being extracted hereunder:-

“In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial.

Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner.”

4. Learned Counsel in support of his contentions has referred the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India-Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025 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 Section132(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 a