Ramchandra Vishnoi Etc. VS Union of India

impugned order pertains to an appeal filed by the appellants against the rejection of their bail application by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The rejection was based on the premise that a prior bail application had been dismissed on its merits. The appellants stand accused of violating Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by allegedly engaging in the fraudulent activity of siphoning Input Tax Credit through the use of counterfeit invoices.

The legal proceedings commenced with the registration of a criminal case before the Court of the Special Judge/ACMM (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, on 10 July 2021. Subsequently, the appellants filed their initial bail application, which was rejected by the trial court on 27 July 2021. The present appeal challenges the dismissal of this bail application by the High Court.

The central issue revolves around the denial of bail to the appellants based on the dismissal of their previous bail application. The appellants contend that the rejection of their earlier bail plea does not warrant the automatic dismissal of subsequent bail applications. They argue that each bail application must be considered independently based on its own merits and circumstances. Furthermore, the appellants assert that the mere fact of a prior bail application being dismissed should not serve as a bar to their right to seek bail again.

The appellants emphasize their right to liberty and argue that the denial of bail without proper consideration of their current circumstances violates their fundamental rights. They contend that the High Court erred in rejecting their bail application solely on the basis of the previous dismissal, without duly considering the changed circumstances or any new arguments presented in their current application.

On the other hand, the respondent, likely represented by the state or prosecuting authority, may argue in favor of upholding the impugned order, asserting that the dismissal of the earlier bail application indicates the gravity of the charges and the likelihood of the appellants absconding or tampering with evidence if granted bail. They may contend that the principles of judicial discretion allow the court to consider the entire history of the case, including prior bail applications, in determining whether bail should be granted.

The outcome of this appeal will have significant implications not only for the appellants but also for the broader legal interpretation of bail procedures and the balance between individual rights and the interests of justice in cases involving economic offenses.

In a case concerning allegations of siphoning input-tax credit against fake invoices under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, the appellants filed an application for bail which was rejected by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The rejection was based on the previous dismissal of a bail application on its merits.

The criminal case against the appellants was initiated before the Court of the Special Judge/ACMM (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on July 10, 2021. Subsequently, their first bail application was dismissed by the trial court on July 27, 2021, and the Additional Sessions Judge also rejected their bail application on August 2, 2021. The final report/complaint was filed before the ACMM on September 7, 2021.

The appellants have been in custody for almost 14 months. Notably, one of their co-accused, Pravin Jangir, was granted bail by the High Court on October 4, 2021, and another co-accused, Hemant Tyagi, was granted bail by the Court on May 18, 2022.

Considering the duration of custody already undergone by the appellants and the bail granted to their co-accused, the court directed the release of the appellants, Ramchandra Vishnoi and Himmat Singh Bhati, on bail. The conditions of their bail include depositing any passports they possess before the competent court and reporting regularly to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station at least once every fortnight.

This decision marks a significant development in the legal proceedings, as it acknowledges the duration of custody and the bail granted to co-accused while ensuring that the appellants adhere to specified conditions during their release.

The summary outlines a legal case where appellants sought bail after their application was rejected by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The appellants are accused of committing an offense under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, involving the misuse of Input-Tax credit through fake invoices.

The criminal case was lodged in the Court of the Special Judge/ACMM (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, on July 10, 2021. Their initial bail application was denied by the trial court on July 27, 2021, and subsequently by the Additional Sessions Judge on August 2, 2021. The final report or complaint was filed before the ACMM on September 7, 2021.

The appellants have been in custody for nearly 14 months, while their co-accused, Pravin Jangir, and Hemant Tyagi, were granted bail by the High Court and the Supreme Court, respectively.

Considering the duration of custody and the bail granted to co-accused individuals, the court directs that the appellants, Ramchandra Vishnoi and Himmat Singh Bhati, be released on bail, subject to conditions set by the Trial Court. These conditions may include surrendering any passports, regular reporting to the police station, among others.

The appeals are thus disposed of, along with any pending applications.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: