Mahesh Sharma S/O Shri Harishankar Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mahesh Sharma, filed a bail application before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, in connection with FIR No. DGGI/INT/INTL/292/2024 dated 04.01.2025. The FIR pertains to alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(c), (f), (h), and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since 04.01.2025, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The maximum punishment for the alleged offences is stated to be 5 years. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the absence of criminal antecedents and cited a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, Mahesh Sharma. The decision was based on a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Jain (supra), and the arguments advanced by both parties. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Additionally, specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, not leaving the country without permission, depositing his passport, and cooperating with the trial. The Court noted that if these conditions were not complied with, the prosecution would be free to move for cancellation of bail. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. given the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(c), (f), (h), and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the fact that a charge-sheet has been filed? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the maximum punishment is 5 years, he has no criminal antecedents, and he has been in custody since 04.01.2025. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, which granted bail in a similar scenario, emphasizing that bail should generally be granted unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The petitioner also stated readiness to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent's Arguments: The Union of India (respondent) opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioner had previously not appeared when summoned by the CGST Department, indicating a likelihood of absconding if granted bail. The respondent also argued that economic offences should be treated as a class apart.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1), Section 483
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 09/06/2025
This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. DGGI/INT/INTL/292/2024/-Gr H-O/o, ADG-DGGI-ZU Jaipur dated 04.01.2025, for the offences under Sections 132(1), (c), (f), (h) and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum punishment to be awarded for the alleged offences is 5 years. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the petitioner is behind the bars since 04.01.2025. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025, Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India decided
[2025:RJ-JP:22996] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3459/2025] on 28.04.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances. By setting aside the impugned order dated 24th January, 2025 of the High court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, we grant bail to the appellant. The appellant shall be immediately produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall enlarge him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the conclusion of the trial.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation during trial and the documents as relied by the respondent in criminal complaint/chargesheet are bulky, hence the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that the conduct of the petitioner is that earlier also on issuing summons by CGST Department, he did not appear for giving statements, hence, there is likelihood that the petitioner will abscond in case he is granted bail. It is further contended that economic offence may be treated
[2025:RJ-JP:22996] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3459/2025] as a class part, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Jain (supra) and the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is hereby allowed. The accused-petitioner-Mahesh Sharma S/o Shri Harishankar Sharma, shall be released on bail in pursuance of FIR No. DGGI/INT/INTL/292/2024/-Gr H-O/o, ADG-DGGI-ZU Jaipur dated 04.01.2025, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. That apart, the accused-petitioner shall also follow the conditions as under:- (i). He shall not tamper with any evidence, nor would influence the witnesses in the case. (ii). He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (iii). He shall deposit the passport before the concerned Authority. (iv). He shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court. (v). In case, the above conditions are not complied by the accused-petitioner, thus the respondent- prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application. (ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-243
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.