Vikas Bansal vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted bail to the accused-petitioner, Shri Vikas Bansal. The Court noted that while economic offences are serious and require a different approach, the petitioner's right to bail must also be considered. The petitioner had been in custody for 30 days, and there was no indication that further custodial detention was essential for the investigation. The Court found no evidence suggesting the petitioner would evade trial or tamper with witnesses, and as a resident of Assam, his presence at trial could be secured. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for five years and a fine, which was considered. The Court also acknowledged that the offence involved was compoundable. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to several conditions, including not leaving the territorial jurisdiction without permission, depositing his passport, not hampering the investigation or tampering with evidence, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and not contacting witnesses.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Shri Vikas Bansal, proprietor of M/s Bansal Associates, under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner is accused of contravening Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act), punishable under Section 132(1)(i). The investigation stemmed from the arrest of Amit Kumar and Sourav Bajoria in a related GST case. During the investigation, searches were conducted at the petitioner's premises in Ludhiana, where no business records were found. The petitioner's statement was recorded, and his mobile phone was seized, which allegedly contained incriminating documents. The petitioner's firm, M/s Bansal Associates, Guwahati, was also raided by the State GST, Assam. The CGST authority alleged GST evasion of Rs. 15,05,99,941/- and found 2151 e-way bills to be bogus.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has made incriminating statements admitting allegations against him, thereby justifying his continued detention? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 70 of the CGST Act). 2. Whether the petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and whether further custodial detention is essential for its completion? (Question of mixed law and fact). 3. Whether the co-accused have been granted default bail due to the complainant/CGST authority failing to complete the investigation within the statutory period, and if this principle applies to the petitioner? (Question of law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation, and no further custody is required by the CGST authority. Co-accused have been granted default bail in connected cases due to the failure of the CGST authority to complete the investigation within the statutory period. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (CGST) has not explicitly recorded arguments in the provided text regarding the specific issues raised by the petitioner concerning bail, beyond presenting the case records.