Ankit Bansal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan High Court held that bail application in GST fake firm case is denied based on seriousness of the offence and also petitioner has attempted to abscond from the custody at the time of consideration of bail application.
Facts- This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under section 483 of BNSS for seeking regular bail in respect of FIR dated 03.06.2024, registered at office of DGGI, JZU, Jaipur for offences punishable under section 132 (10(b)(c)(j) and (l) of Central goods and services tax act 2017.
Fictitious transactions were shown to have taken place from such fake/non-existent firms. During course of investigation, as many as 19 accounts were searched by DGGI, carrying huge transaction amounting to Rs. 1800 crores in last 1–2 years and quite suspiciously there were cash transactions of around 800 crores.
Conclusion- It is no longer res-integra that it is necessary to assess the accused’s propensity to abscond, at the time of consideration of the bail application. In view of the facts of the instant case, where the petitioner has attempted to abscond, he is not entitled to bail.
Needless to mention that where the amount involved runs into hundreds of crores and has serious implications over the economic fabric of the country, it cannot be said to be a routine matter; and hence, quantum is directly relevant in assessing the seriousness of the offence and the necessity of custody. Therefore, when determining bail in economic offences, the magnitude of the siphoned amount is not merely incidental but rather an integral indicator of the severity of the offence, potential influence over witnesses or the system, and the possible adverse impact on public confidence in financial integrity and the rule of law. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner hereby stands dismissed.
