Aman Singhania vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER(ORAL) 18.03.2026
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
These two bail applications are U/S.483 of BNSS Act by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with 2(C) CC Case No.51 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned JM, Panposh for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 132(1)(b)/ 132(1)(c)/ 132(1)(f)/ 132(1)(i), on the main allegation of availing Input Tax Credit(ITC) fraudulently for around Rs.92Crores.
Heard, Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Satyapada Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.204 of 2026; Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Adhiraj Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.495 of 2026 and Mr. P.K. Parhi, leraned DSGI appearing for Union of India being assisted by Mr. J. Panda, learned CGC in these two matters and perused the record.
Admittedly the offence alleged against the petitioners are under clauses (b), (c), (f) and (i) of Sec.132(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, but the petitioners are in custody since 28.11.2025. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by magistrate and the maximum punishment prescribed therein is for imprisonment for five years. Further, the petitioners by way of affidavit has informed the Court that they are not having any criminal antecedents of similar nature, which could not be disputed by the learned counsel appearing for CGST. Additionally, co- accused Subham Agarwal has been granted interim protection in ABLAPL No.1114 of 2026. 6. In the context of consideration of bail application for commission of aforesaid offences, this Court considers it proper to refer the decision of the Apex Court in Vineet Jain Vrs. Union of India; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2331, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 4 has held as under:-
“xxx.These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extraordinary circumstances”
The offences alleged against the petitioners are akin to the offences alleged against the appellant Vineet Jain
therein in the relied on case, but no materials or documents is produced by the Union of India to indicate that the present case demonstrates any extraordinary circumstance. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the offences being not punishable beyond five years and the petitioners having already been detained in custody for around four months, but there being no criminal antecedent reported against the petitioners for any offence and taking into the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits each of the petitioners to bail.
Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners Aman Singhania in BLAPL No. 204 of 2026 and Aavesh Agarwal in BLAPL No.495 of 2026 stand allowed and the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge Jayakrushna
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.