Case Law Details
Naresh Chandra Jajra Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Introduction: The case of Naresh Chandra Jajra versus Union of India, adjudicated by the Rajasthan High Court, pertains to a bail application under Section 439 P.C. in connection with a case filed under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Petitioner’s Claims: The petitioner, represented by learned senior counsel, contends that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Arguments include disassociation from ownership of Sagar Industries, retraction of statements, and delegation of responsibilities to Abhishek Gehlot. The petitioner highlights the absence of incriminating evidence and the prolonged trial duration as grounds for bail.
2. Prosecution’s Counter: The prosecution, represented by learned senior standing counsel, refutes the petitioner’s claims, alleging evasion of GST amounting to Rs. 21 crores. They assert the petitioner’s central role in the offense, backed by recorded statements under Section 70 of the GST Act, which they deem admissible. A comparison is drawn with precedent cases to emphasize the gravity of the offense.
3. Judicial Deliberation: After considering both sides’ arguments and the case’s circumstances, the court opts to grant bail to Naresh Chandra Jajra. The judgment refrains from expressing an opinion on the case’s merits but deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Conclusion: The Rajasthan High Court’s decision to grant bail to Naresh Chandra Jajra in the face of conflicting arguments underscores the complexities of legal interpretation. While the petitioner’s assertions of innocence and concerns about trial duration influenced the decision, the prosecution’s portrayal of the gravity of the offense also held weight. This case serves as a reminder of the nuanced considerations involved in judicial proceedings, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 P.C. arising out of file No. DGGI/INV/GST/3064/2021-Gr-B-O/OADG-DGGI-JZU-JAIPUR for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 132(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 24.12.2021. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. There is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is neither proprietor of the Sagar Industries nor he is the owner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had retracted the statement given by him under Section 70 of G.S.T. Act. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had given Sagar Industries by way of agreement to Abhishek Gehlot. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that statements of the Abhishek Gahlot and Lalit Vyas cannot be read against him. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that maximum punishment in this case is 5 years and conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:(1) Shri Vikas Bansal, Versus Union Of India in Bail Application No.2381/2021; (2) Dananjay Singh Versus Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18825/2021; (3) Kishore Wadhwani Versus State of M.P. reported in 2022(43) G.S.T.L. 145(M.P.).
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had evaded GST around of Rs. 21 crores. He is the main culprit. During investigation, statements under Section 70 of G.S.T. Act were recorded and which are admissible in evidence. Learned senior standing counsel further submits that case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Dananjay Singh Versus Union Of India. Case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Vinay Kant Ameta Versus Union Of India and bail of the Vinay Kant Ameta was rejected by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court has granted the bail to the Vinay Kant Ameta on depositing of Rs.200 crores. So, looking to the gravity of offence, bail be dismissed.
5. Considering the contentions put-forth by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Naresh Chandra Jajra S/o Late Shri Balkrishan Jajra shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
Author Bio
