Amit Jain S/O Shri Satendra Jain vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, Amit Jain, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the petitioner was not initially named as an accused and was implicated solely on the basis of statements from co-accused Nikunj Singhal and Lakshay Agarwal. It was also observed that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and that he had been in custody since March 17, 2023. The Court took into consideration that the bail applications of co-accused Nikunj Singhal and Lakshay Agarwal had already been granted by a coordinate bench. Furthermore, the Court referred to the Apex Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik, which emphasized that in cases where investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed, and the punishment involves imprisonment up to five years, the period already undergone in custody, coupled with the likely delay in trial and the documentary nature of evidence, warrants granting bail. The Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Jain, is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is accused of offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (f) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated based on statements from co-accused Nikunj Singhal and Lakshay Agarwal, who alleged he provided fake invoices. No recovery has been made from the petitioner, and he was not initially named as an accused. The investigation concerning other accused is complete, a complaint has been filed, and they have been released on bail. The petitioner has been in custody since March 17, 2023, and the trial is expected to be lengthy. The respondent, Union of India through the DGGI, alleges the petitioner is a key conspirator in a racket involving fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 127.35 crores without actual supply of goods, operating through 32 fake firms, with investigations ongoing for 674 other firms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering his period of incarceration, the stage of investigation, and the alleged involvement in a GST fraud? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated based solely on the statements of co-accused, with no recovery from him. He highlights that the main investigation is complete for other accused, a complaint has been filed against them, and they have been granted bail by this Court. He emphasizes his custody period since March 17, 2023, and the anticipated delay in trial. Reliance is placed on Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India, and bail orders in the cases of Lakshya Agarwal and Nikunj Singhal. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argues that the petitioner is a key conspirator in a significant GST fraud involving fraudulent availment of ITC without supply of goods, amounting to Rs. 127.35 crores through 32 fake firms. They assert that investigations are ongoing for a large number of other firms. Reliance is placed on Basudev Mittal vs. Union of India, Sumit Dutta vs. Union of India, and Mohammed Yunus vs. State of Rajasthan.