Union Of INDIA vs. Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Babu Lal

Held

The Court held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not travel beyond the record while granting bail to the sole respondent. The Court noted that co-accused Suresh Jajra, Abhishek Gehlot, and Naresh Chandra Jajra had indeed been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in the same criminal case. The allegations against these co-accused involved defalcation of GST amounts of Rs. 54 Crores, Rs. 39.93 Crores, and Rs. 21.68 Crores respectively. The Court found that the lower court's assessment of similarity was justified given that other accused in the same case, facing similar charges under Section 132 of the CGST Act, had been granted bail. Therefore, the bail cancellation application was dismissed as devoid of merit. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) and the Director DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit filed a criminal bail cancellation application. They sought to cancel the regular bail granted to Ramesh Kumar by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II on November 30, 2022. The bail was granted in relation to a case concerning offenses under Section 132(1) (a), (f), (h), (k) & (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegation against Ramesh Kumar is the defalcation of GST amounting to Rs. 79.50 Crores through the creation and fabrication of income documents. The petitioners argued that the lower court erred by considering the respondent's case similar to co-accused who were granted bail by the High Court, asserting they faced separate criminal charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting bail to the respondent by considering his case to be on a similar footing to co-accused who had already been granted bail by the High Court, despite the respondent facing allegations of defalcation of a significantly higher amount and potentially facing individual criminal charges, thereby travelling beyond the record and ignoring relevant material? (Section 132(1) (a), (f), (h), (k) & (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners argued that the lower court erroneously concluded that the respondent's case was similar to co-accused Naresh Chandra Jajra, Suresh Jajra, and Abhishek Gehlot. They contended that these co-accused were facing individual criminal charges in separate matters, not as members of the same firm, and that the lower court had travelled beyond the record by considering irrelevant material and ignoring relevant material while granting bail. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment.