Mohit S/O Shri Ishwar Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. It noted that the petitioner had been in custody since July 12, 2023, and that co-accused Rajat and Ishu had been released on bail, albeit under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Court also acknowledged that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents and that the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, does not exceed five years imprisonment and a fine. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnambar Kaushik (supra), and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each for his appearance before the trial court.
Facts
The petitioner, Mohit, is seeking bail in a case registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. He was employed by two other individuals, Rajat and Ishu, who were also implicated in the case. The charge-sheet against Rajat and Ishu was not filed within the stipulated time, leading to their release on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been in custody since July 12, 2023, with a brief interim bail. The maximum punishment for the alleged offenses does not exceed five years imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner claims to have no prior criminal antecedents. The respondent, Union of India, opposed the bail application, highlighting the gravity of economic offenses and the alleged evasion of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹73.54 Crore through 73 fake firms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering his period of custody, the alleged offenses, and the fact that co-accused were released on bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been in custody since July 12, 2023, and that co-accused Rajat and Ishu were granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to delayed charge-sheet filing. He emphasizes that the maximum punishment is five years imprisonment and a fine, and he has no criminal antecedents. He relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, which granted bail considering the period of incarceration and the nature of evidence. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argues that bail should generally not be granted in economic offenses. They highlight the significant amount of ITC evaded (₹73.54 Crore) through numerous fake firms, underscoring the gravity of the offenses.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(1)(f), Section 132(1)(k), Section 132(5), Section 132(1)(i), Section 167(2), Section 439
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 14/12/2023
Instant bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with Case No. DGGI/Inv/INTL/40/2023-Gr-N-O/o
DD-DGGI-RU-UDAIPUR registered at Office of the Additional Directorate General, DGGI Zonal Office, Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 132(1)(b)(c) (f)(k) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and read with Section 132(5).
It has been argued by the learned counsel for
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.