Case Law Details
Mahesh Sharma S/o Shri Harishankar Sharma Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Bail Allowed in GST Evasion Case Because Trial Is Likely to Take Considerable Time; GST Accused Released on Bail Because Charge-Sheet Was Already Filed; Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Despite Economic Offence Objection Because Facts Favoured Release; Bail Granted in CGST Prosecution Because No Criminal Antecedents Were Shown; GST Offence Accused Granted Bail Subject to Passport Deposit and Trial Cooperation Conditions.
The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with an FIR dated 04.01.2025 registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for offences under Sections 132(1)(c), (f), (h), and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is five years. It was also argued that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 04.01.2025, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineet Jain v. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 2269/2025, decided on 28.04.2025), where the Supreme Court observed that offences under Section 132(1)(c), (f), and (h) of the CGST Act carry a maximum sentence of five years, are based on documentary evidence, and ordinarily warrant grant of bail in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The petitioner further submitted that he was willing to cooperate during trial and that the large volume of documents relied upon in the charge-sheet would likely result in a lengthy trial.
The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. It was contended that the petitioner had earlier failed to appear before the CGST Department despite issuance of summons for recording statements. On that basis, it was argued that there was a likelihood of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. The prosecution also submitted that economic offences constitute a separate class of offences and therefore the bail application should be rejected.
After hearing both sides and examining the material on record, the Court considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineet Jain. Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the allegations, the Court held that it would be just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application was allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹5,00,000 along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The Court imposed several conditions on the petitioner. He was directed not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court, and to deposit his passport with the concerned authority. He was further directed to cooperate in the trial and remain present on every date of hearing unless exempted by the trial court. The Court also granted liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if any of the conditions were violated.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
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 24th 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:-
(i) He shall not tamper with any evidence, nor would influence the witnesses in the case.
(ii) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
(iii) He shall deposit the passport before the concerned Authority.
(iv) He shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court.
(v) In case, the above conditions are not complied by the accused-petitioner, thus the respondent-prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application.
Author Bio
