Vijay Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed Vijay Yadav’s first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. Arr 05/2026 registered at Police Station SGST, Naya Raipur, District Raipur. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, proprietor of M/s. Maya Steel & Enterprise and M/s. Mayra Steel Enterprises, had fraudulently availed and utilized input tax credit exceeding ₹9.54 crore. According to the supplied order, the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, registered an FIR on 20 July 2026, and the applicant had remained in custody since that date.
The applicant sought bail on the grounds that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the offences were non-bailable and compoundable, and his only criminal antecedent dated back to 2018. The State opposed the application, citing the alleged loss to the public exchequer and the applicant’s criminal antecedent. Considering the nature of the allegations, completion of the charge-sheet, custody since 20 July 2026 and the single antecedent from 2018, the Court found that a case for bail was made out. The Court also recorded that the offences under Sections 132(1)(B) and 132(1)(c) were non-bailable and compoundable, without expressing any opinion on the merits. Release was directed upon execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the same amount, subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring attendance before the trial Court on every date. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case independently on its merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.Arr 05/2026 registered at Police Station SGST, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 132(1)(B), 132((1)(C), 132 (1)(i) and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’).
2) As per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant, who is the proprietor of M/s. Maya Steel & Enterprise and M/s. Mayra Steel Enterprises, fraudulently availed and utilized of Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs.9.54 crores. Therefore, an FIR was registered against the present applicant by the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, on 20.07.2026. Hence, the present bail application.
3) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would argue that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed; the applicant is in jail since 20.07.2026; and the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(B) and 132(1)(c) of the Act of 2017 are non-bailable and compoundable. It is also argued that the applicant has one criminal antecedent, which was registered in the year 2018. Thus, he would pray for grant of bail to the present applicant.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that the present applicant fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit of Rs.9.54 crores and thereby caused loss to the public exchequer. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent; therefore, his bail application deserves to be rejected.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that there is only one criminal antecedent against the applicant, which was registered in the year 2018, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant is in jail since 20.07.2026, further considering that the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(B) and 132(1)(c) of the Act of 2017 are non-bailable and compoundable, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the bail application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
7) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;
(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &
(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.
