Prem Kumar S/O Darga Ram Dewasi vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Prem Kumar, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each. The Court considered the petitioner's arguments regarding the amount in dispute being potentially less than Rs. 5 crores, the deposits made by co-accused, and the fact that the petitioner has no prior criminal record. The Court also took into account the petitioner's age, family responsibilities, and the fact that he has been in custody since September 3, 2025. The Court noted that the evidence regarding the actual delivery of goods and the routes taken by the vehicles is a matter of trial. It also acknowledged that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no indication of him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Supreme Court judgments such as Vineet Jain Vs Union of India and Ashutosh Garg Vs Union of India. The bail was granted with the condition that the petitioner will appear before the trial court as and when required, deposit his passport, and not leave the country without prior permission. The Court explicitly stated that the bail is granted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and will not be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Prem Kumar, is seeking bail in connection with a case registered under Section 132(1)(b)(I) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur, alleged that the petitioner, as a proprietor of M/s Keshav Cement Agency, facilitated the issuance of fake invoices amounting to Rs. 6,49,33,117 without actual supply of goods. The petitioner claims to have procured cement from M/s Altatech Cement Company and paid the applicable 28% GST on these invoices to Altatech Cement Company. The petitioner also argues that a significant portion of the alleged tax evasion amount has already been deposited by co-accused, including Rs. 1,99,81,089 by M/s Babck Contractor & Engineers and Rs. 51,00,000 by M/s Naresh Infotech Project Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is 29 years old, has elderly parents, and a 3-year-old daughter, and has no prior criminal record. He has been in custody since September 3, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving alleged GST evasion under Section 132(1)(b)(I) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the amount in dispute and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he has discharged his GST liability for his share and that the alleged tax evasion amount is less than Rs. 5 crores, which would not make the case a non-bailable offense. He highlights that co-accused have already deposited substantial amounts. He also points out that the vehicles used for delivery were routed to avoid toll, which does not necessarily mean goods were not delivered. He relies on Supreme Court judgments like Vineet Jain Vs Union of India and Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India, emphasizing the principles of granting bail in such cases, especially considering his age, family responsibilities, and lack of prior criminal record. He also states his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (Union of India) argues that the petitioner is the proprietor and partner of M/s Keshav Cement Agency and facilitated the issuance of fake invoices without actual supply, leading to ITC claims. They contend that the petitioner's claim of paying GST to Altatech Cement Company is unsubstantiated and that the petitioner has admitted to an offense under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act. The respondent fears that if granted bail, the petitioner might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, as the investigation is ongoing. They cite various judgments to support their contention that bail should be denied in cases of serious economic offenses.