Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:36933] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13115/2026 CNR: RJHC020805992026 | URN: CRLMB / 24245U / 2026 Tusharanshu Singhal S/o Shri Banwari Lal Singhal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Sector No. 4,shastrinagar, G.t. Road, Dholpur, Rajasthan ( At Present Lodged In Judicial Custody At The Central Jail Jaipur, And In Custody Since 02-07-2026) ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through The Inspecotr/authorised Officer, Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate, Alwar Rajasthan.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 14/09/2026 1.The instant criminal misc. bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Tusharanshu Singhal, who is in custody in connection with case no.GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/6446/2026-AE-O/OCOMMR-CGST,ALWAR registered at the Office of the Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Alwar for the offence under Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the case arises out of an investigation initiated by the CGST Commissionerate, Alwar, pursuant to search proceedings conducted in February, 2026 at
[2026:RJ-JP:36933] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13115/2026] the premises of M/s Bhagwati Trading Company and M/s Kanha Metal Industries, Dholpur. The Department alleges wrongful availment and passing on of Input Tax Credit by the said entities, involving an aggregate amount of approximately Rs.13.21 Crores, besides alleged irregular refund under the inverted duty structure.
During investigation, documents, electronic records and mobile phone were seized and statements of the concerned persons were recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2026 under Section 69 of the CGST Act and has remained in judicial custody thereafter. Thus, this bail application.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, carries a maximum sentence of five years and is triable by a Magistrate, and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the case rests predominantly upon documentary and electronic evidence, which already stands seized, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has fully cooperated with the investigation. He further submits that no Show Cause Notice or adjudication determining the alleged liability has been issued against the petitioner and the alleged quantum of evasion remains provisional. No further recovery or custodial interrogation is required and that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would amount to pre-trial punishment.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the GST Department has vehemently opposed the bail plea made by the counsel for the petitioner by submitting that there are serious allegations in
[2026:RJ-JP:36933] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13115/2026] respect of commission of offence under the Penal provisions of GST Act.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the GST Department, perused the order impugned, and other material made available on record.
6. It is well-nigh settled that the provisions relating to bail are neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The gravity of the allegation or the quantum involved, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for declining bail. The Court is also required to examine whether there exists any reasonable apprehension of the accused fleeing from justice, tampering with the evidence, influencing the witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of trial. In the present case, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and no such apprehension has been demonstrated by the respondent-Department.
6.1 It is also pertinent to note that the allegations against the petitioner are founded substantially upon documentary and electronic material. The search proceedings already stand concluded; the documents, books of account and electronic records running into several pages have been taken into possession by the Department and the mobile phone has also been subjected to forensic examination. The petitioner has been interrogated and, as recorded in the impugned order itself, no further recovery or custodial interrogation is required. Thus, his continued incarceration would not advance the cause of investigation in any meaningful manner.
[2026:RJ-JP:36933] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13115/2026] 6.2 The alleged liability, being essentially pecuniary and capable of quantification, can be recovered in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The State is not rendered remediless merely because the petitioner is enlarged on bail. The amount, if ultimately found recoverable upon adjudication, can be realised by taking recourse to the appropriate statutory machinery, including against the movable and immovable properties of the person liable, in accordance with law. Criminal prosecution and proceedings for recovery operate in distinct fields and may proceed simultaneously.
6.3 Another significant aspect of the matter is that no adjudication determining the alleged tax liability has taken place against the petitioner till date and the alleged quantum of evasion has itself been stated to be provisional. The determination of the actual liability and its ultimate recovery are matters which can be dealt with in accordance with the statutory scheme. Keeping the petitioner in judicial custody merely to secure the alleged pecuniary liability would, in the considered view of this Court, serve no fruitful purpose.
6.4 The offence alleged against the petitioner carries a maximum sentence of five years and is triable by the learned Magistrate. At the stage of bail, this Court cannot proceed on the assumption that the petitioner would necessarily be convicted and, even in the event of conviction, sentenced to the maximum punishment prescribed by law. The discretion vested in the sentencing Court must remain intact so that, upon consideration of all relevant
[2026:RJ-JP:36933] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13115/2026] circumstances, the appropriate sentence may be determined within the statutory range. Pre-conviction detention cannot be permitted to operate as a substitute for the sentence which may or may not ultimately be imposed. The petitioner has already remained in judicial custody and, if continued therein, his participation in the proceedings would essentially be confined to being produced before the learned trial Court on the dates fixed, followed by his return to judicial custody. When the entire relevant record is already in the possession of the Department, the petitioner has been interrogated, no further recovery is required, and there is no material suggesting that his release would prejudice the investigation or trial, further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose.
6.5 Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the evidence, completion of the material part of the investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, non-requirement of further custodial interrogation or recovery, the availability of statutory machinery for recovery of the alleged amount, the fact that the alleged liability is yet to attain finality, and the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner, Tusharanshu Singhal S/o Shri Banwari Lal Singhal, shall be enlarged on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties
[2026:RJ-JP:36933] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13115/2026] in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with an undertaking to appear before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J 95/YOGESH KUMAR