Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal S/O Shri Radhey Shyam Khandelwal vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on the fact that after investigation, a charge-sheet had already been filed. Consequently, the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation. The Court also considered the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Jain (Supra). Without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the Court found it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, and adherence to specific conditions: not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, not leaving the country without prior court permission, and cooperating in the trial by attending all hearing dates unless exempted by the trial court.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal, filed a criminal miscellaneous bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. The application pertains to Case No.AC/EWI/A/JAIPUR/2025-26/7405, registered at the State GST Ward-II, Circle-A, Enforcement Wing Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Section 132(1)(a)(b)(c)(i) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He has been in custody since September 17, 2025, and a charge-sheet has been filed after investigation. The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court judgment in Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in light of the charge-sheet being filed and the petitioner's period of incarceration, considering the provisions of Section 132(1)(a)(b)(c)(i) and Section 132(5) of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that a charge-sheet has already been filed after investigation, meaning he is no longer required for custodial interrogation. He also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, seeking enlargement on bail. Respondent's argument: The State of Rajasthan, through the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), vehemently opposed the bail application.