Sandeep Singhal S/O Shri Shiv Shankar vs. Directorate General Of Central Goods And Services Tax Intelligence

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It considered the arguments advanced by both sides, noting that the matter is triable by a magistrate, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the alleged offence is compoundable in nature. The Court also took into account that a co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, and without commenting on the merits or demerits of the case, the Court found it inclined to grant bail. The petitioner, Sandeep Singhal, was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge, for his appearance on all dates of hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Singhal, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after being arrested in connection with a case registered by the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit. The allegations pertain to offences under Section 132(1)(c)(f) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claims to have no criminal antecedents and is the sole breadwinner for his family. He argues that the alleged offence is triable by a magistrate, the charge sheet has been filed, and the offence is compoundable. He also notes that a co-accused has been granted bail and that all witnesses are government officials. The Revenue opposed the bail, stating the petitioner evaded tax amounting to approximately Rs. 11 crores and that white-collar financial crimes harm the country's financial health. The Revenue also contended that the co-accused's bail was granted on different facts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the nature of the alleged offences under the CGST Act, 2017, and the stage of the proceedings? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the offence is triable by a magistrate as per Section 134 of the CGST/RGST Act, the charge sheet has been filed, and the offence is compoundable under Section 137 of the CGST/RGST Act. They emphasized the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents, his role as the primary breadwinner, the fact that all witnesses are government officials, and that a co-accused was previously granted bail. Reliance was placed on *Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India* and *Lakshya Agarwal vs. DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit*. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue opposed bail, highlighting the alleged tax evasion of approximately Rs. 11 crores and the adverse impact of such white-collar financial crimes on the nation's economy. They contended that the case of the co-accused granted bail was factually distinct. Reliance was placed on *Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, ED* and *Manish Sisodia vs. CBI*.