Vikas Baghel Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court allowed Vikas Baghel’s bail application in Case Crime No. 389 of 2025, registered at Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, under Sections 318(3), 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the applicant’s counsel, GST officials had lodged the FIR on 28 August 2025 against him as proprietor of M/s. Nidhi Enterprises concerning an input tax credit claim of ₹80 lakh. Counsel contended that the applicant, an artificial jewellery maker, had been used as a scapegoat and paid ₹20,000 per month, while GST officials and a Chartered Accountant actually operated the firm and manipulated its records.
Counsel referred to the firm’s email ID allegedly belonging to the Chartered Accountant and a separate FIR against three GST officials. He also explained the applicant’s criminal history of seven cases, submitted that the charge sheet had been filed, and stated that the applicant had been in custody since 13 May 2026 while the trial had yet to commence. The State opposed bail. After considering the submissions and record, the Court observed prima facie that the applicant received ₹20,000 per month for running the business under the firm’s banner, while other co-accused actually ran it. Without touching the merits, the Court granted bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court, referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Girish Gandhi and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re. The applicant was directed to cooperate in the judicial process for fair and speedy disposal.
Cases Discussed
- Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 674 (Supreme Court) — The Court referred to this decision while directing release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.
- Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re, (2024) 10 SCC 685 (Supreme Court) — The Court also referred to this decision in connection with the bond and surety requirements for release.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for accused applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-Vikas Baghel to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2025, under Sections 318(3), 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338, 318(4) of BNS, P.S.- Jalesar, District- Etah, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the FIR has been lodged on 28.08.2025 by the GST officials against accused applicant being proprietor of M/s. Nidhi Enterprises. There is claim of input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 80 lakh. It is the contention of learned counsel that accused applicant has been made scapegoat in the present case as he is a maker of artificial jewellery. The GST officials namely Sushil, Prashant Kumari, Dushyant as well as Sonu Kushwaha, the Chartered Accountant have met him and asked him for incorporation of a company and also paid him Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is the contention of learned counsel that the entire record has been manipulated and the firm was being run by those officials as well as by the C.A. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards page no. 83, which is part of the case diary to shows that the e-mail ID of the firm is of Sonu Kushwaha the Chartered Accountant. He further draws the attention of this Court towards the FIR in Case Crime No. 453 of 2025 registered at P.S.- Kotwali, District- Etah against the three GST officials lodged by the official of the GST department. It is further contended that accused applicant has no role. There is no incriminating material against the accused applicant. Five cases of GST have been invoked against the accused applicant. The accused applicant has criminal history of seven cases including those five cases, in five cases, he is on bail, in one case he is acquitted and in one case he has been released on notice. The charge sheet is submitted. The applicant is merely a labour, who has been used for starting a firm on a meager amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He is not having complicity in the present case. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 13.05.2026. The trial is still to commence. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State opposed the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that prima facie the accused applicant got Rs. 20,000/- per month for running the business under the banner of M/s. Nidhi Enterprises which actually run by other co-accused, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal.
