Vikas Bajoria VS Union of India

The bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been submitted in relation to the petitioner’s arrest in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/2563/2022-Gr.-F-O/o ADG-DGGI-JZU-Jaipur, which is registered at the learned Special Court Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) in Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The petitioner is accused under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as “the Act of 2017”).

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner is innocent and has been wrongly accused. They draw attention to paragraph 19 of the respondent’s reply to the bail application, stating that the entire amount of alleged tax evasion is contested.

The petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of being falsely implicated in the case. The application delves into legal intricacies and emphasizes the need for the petitioner’s release pending trial.

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with a case registered at the Special Court Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) in Jaipur. The petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner’s counsel argues that their client is innocent and that the entire alleged tax evasion amount of Rs. 43.93 crores has already been deposited by the recipient(s). They emphasize that the petitioner has been in custody since November 8, 2022, the investigation is complete, and the charge sheet is due to be filed soon. They also point out that the offence is compoundable and carries a maximum sentence of five years, citing relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

On the contrary, the respondent’s counsel argues against granting bail, citing the deposition of the evaded tax as evidence of the petitioner’s guilt. They assert that economic offences constitute a distinct class and that the petitioner should not be granted bail. However, they acknowledge that the charge sheet is to be filed soon, within the statutory deadline. They cite relevant judgments, such as Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ram Narain Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, in support of their argument for dismissing the bail application.

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. pertains to a case registered at the Special Court Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) in Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The petitioner is accused under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, involving an alleged tax evasion of Rs. 43.93 crores. The petitioner, through their counsel, asserts innocence, highlighting that the entire evaded amount has been deposited by the recipient(s). They argue that the petitioner has been in custody since November 8, 2022, the investigation is concluded, and a charge sheet is imminent. The petitioner seeks bail citing the compoundable nature of the offense, the five-year maximum sentence, and reliance on relevant Supreme Court judgments.

However, opposing counsel argues that the act of depositing the evaded tax itself indicates the petitioner’s guilt. They contend that economic offenses warrant stricter scrutiny and oppose bail for the petitioner. Despite acknowledging the impending filing of the charge sheet, they cite various judgments to support their stance.

The court, after hearing both parties, considers recent Supreme Court precedent in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik. The court notes the allegations and counter-allegations but refrains from making any prejudicial observations on the case’s merits. It emphasizes that the matter is subject to trial, and any remarks could impact the parties’ positions. The court highlights the need for evidence to establish the accusations, indicating that matters such as the transportation of unmanufactured tobacco are to be proven during trial.

In its deliberation, the court acknowledges the petitioner’s period of custody but also weighs the gravity of the allegations and the nature of economic offenses. It ultimately makes a decision, likely to be either granting or denying bail, based on the presented arguments, legal precedents, and the overarching principles of justice.

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been presented in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/2563/2022-Gr.-F-O/o ADG-DGGI-JZU-Jaipur, involving an alleged offence under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims innocence, emphasizing that the entire alleged tax evasion amounting to Rs. 43.93 crores has already been deposited by the recipient(s). The petitioner has been in custody since 08.11.2022, with the investigation completed and the charge sheet set to be filed the following day. The petitioner cites precedents and the compoundable nature of the offence, seeking bail.

In opposition, the respondent argues that the deposition of evaded tax incriminates the petitioner, highlighting the seriousness of economic offences and opposing bail. However, acknowledging the impending charge sheet filing, they request dismissal of the bail application, citing relevant case laws.

The court, after considering arguments from both sides, references the recent judgment in Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India, where it’s emphasized that bail decisions should not prejudice trial proceedings. Noting the completion of investigation and imminent charge sheet filing, the court deems it appropriate to grant bail. Conditions are imposed, including depositing the passport and other measures to ensure the petitioner’s presence during trial proceedings.

In essence, the court grants bail to the petitioner, considering the completion of investigation, impending charge sheet filing, and the nature of the evidence involved in the case.

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/2563/2022-Gr.-F-O/o ADG-DGGI-JZU-Jaipur at the Special Court Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, concerning an offence under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner asserts innocence, highlighting that the alleged tax evasion amount has already been deposited. They’ve been in custody since 08.11.2022, with the investigation complete and the charge sheet set to be filed imminently. The petitioner cites precedents, notably Supreme Court judgments, supporting bail in similar cases.

Contrarily, the respondent argues against bail, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences and the incriminating nature of tax deposition. They cite legal precedents advocating against bail in such cases. After hearing both sides, the court refers to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ratnambar Kaushik’s case, emphasizing that bail isn’t determined on the merits of the case but on factors like completion of investigation and the nature of evidence. Considering these, the court grants bail, directing the petitioner’s release upon fulfillment of specified conditions, including a personal bond and surrendering their passport.

The court acknowledges the principles outlined in the cases cited by the respondent but deems it just to grant bail based on the present circumstances and the recent legal precedent. Thus, the petitioner is granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., subject to fulfilling specified conditions, including depositing their passport and adhering to court directives.

Download PDF:
Vikas Bajoria

For Reference Visit:
Rajasthan High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law