Dinesh Vyas VS Union of India

The court session commenced with the presentation of arguments by the learned counsel representing both parties involved in the case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.), representing the state, voiced opposition to the petitioner’s request for bail. The A.P.P.’s opposition was rooted in specific legal and factual considerations pertinent to the case. The judge attentively listened to the arguments from both sides, carefully weighing the merits and demerits presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the state. The court then proceeded to deliberate on the matter, taking into account the opposing views and the legal precedents cited by the counsels. The detailed arguments and opposition form a crucial part of the judicial decision-making process concerning the bail application.

In this case, the petitioner seeks bail while being accused of committing an offense under Sections 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017. The offense in question involves fraudulent activities related to goods and services tax (GST).

During the proceedings, both the petitioner’s legal counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) presented their arguments. The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail, while the A.P.P. opposed the request, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offense.

The Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, under Section 132(1)(c), deals with situations where an individual commits fraud to evade tax, improperly avails input tax credit, or falsifies financial records. Section 132(5) addresses the non-bailable nature of such offenses when the amount involved exceeds a specified threshold, underscoring the gravity of these economic offenses and the potential impact on public revenue.

Given the complexity and seriousness of the case, the court must consider various factors, such as the evidence presented, the petitioner’s role in the alleged fraud, the potential risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the necessity of ensuring a fair trial. The opposition by the A.P.P. likely hinges on the severity of the alleged fraudulent activities and their implications for the financial integrity of the GST system.

The court’s decision on whether to grant bail will depend on a careful evaluation of these considerations, balancing the petitioner’s right to liberty with the need to uphold the law and protect public interest from significant financial misconduct.

The court heard arguments from both parties. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) opposed the petitioner’s request for bail. The petitioner is accused of committing an offense under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(5) of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, involving the illegal taking of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner has been in custody since July 24, 2018, totaling over 62 days. Considering the duration of his custody, the court decided to grant bail. Consequently, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the same amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Economic Offence, Jamshedpur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2144 of 2018.

The court heard arguments from both parties, with the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) opposing the bail request. The petitioner is accused of committing an offence under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(5) of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, specifically for allegedly illegally obtaining Input Tax Credit. The petitioner has been in custody since July 24, 2018, amounting to over 62 days. Considering the duration of his custody, the court decided to grant bail. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the same amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Economic Offence, Jamshedpur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2144 of 2018. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Authority once a fortnight until the investigation is completed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: