Balveer Choudhary S/O Shri Nandaram vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, Balveer Choudhary and Bharat Bamal, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with a complaint filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit. The complaint pertains to alleged offences under Section 132(1), (A), (F), (G), (H) & (L) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated based solely on the statements of co-accused, Narendra Choudhary and Hansraj Gurjar, and that they were not directors of the alleged violating firms. They also stated their readiness to cooperate with the investigation. The DGGI opposed the bail, asserting that co-accused statements implicated the petitioners, and during searches at their residences, incriminating material including fake invoices, e-way bills, and Bilty notes were recovered. The DGGI also stated that the petitioners absconded during the search, failed to appear despite multiple summons, and the alleged GST evasion amounted to Rs. 48 crores or more.

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The primary reasoning was based on the petitioners' non-cooperation with the investigating agency, evidenced by their failure to respond to multiple summons issued over a span of one year. The Court noted that incriminating material was recovered during a search conducted at the petitioners' residence, and they absconded at the time of the search. The Court also referred to a previous order by a Co-ordinate Bench dated 22.03.2026, which had granted liberty to the respondents to carry out the arrest of the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Radhika Agarwal (supra), which held that issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not, per se, grant protection against arrest or imply apprehension of arrest. The Court found no inclination to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail considering these facts. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of GST evasion involving approximately Rs. 48 crores through fake invoices, e-way bills, and Bilty notes? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated based solely on the statements of co-accused and that there was no independent material to connect them to the alleged supply of goods on forged documents. They also contended that they were not directors of the firms involved. They expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent's (DGGI) Arguments: The DGGI contended that the co-accused, in their statements under Section 70 of the CGST Act, named the petitioners. They further argued that during searches, the petitioners absconded, and incriminating materials were recovered. The DGGI highlighted that the petitioners failed to appear despite multiple summons issued over a year, and that a previous order by a Co-ordinate Bench had given the respondents liberty to arrest the petitioners. The DGGI relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Directorate Of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan, to argue that a person summoned under Section 70 is not automatically protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.