Vineet Gupta Son Of Shri Mahendra Prakash Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, Vineet Gupta. The Court noted that the petitioner was implicated based solely on the statements of co-accused, Nikunj Singhal and Lakshay Agarwal, and that no recovery had been made from him. It was also observed that the petitioner had been in custody since March 17, 2023, and that the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time. Crucially, the Court noted that the co-accused, Nikunj Singhal and Lakshay Agarwal, had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, which emphasized that in cases where investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed, and the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a significant period, and the evidence is primarily documentary and electronic, bail can be granted. The Court, while enlarging the petitioner on bail, explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case. The petitioner 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, with a condition that one surety must be a resident of Jaipur Metropolitan or Jaipur District.

Facts

The petitioner, Vineet Gupta, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was arrested on March 17, 2023, in connection with a case involving alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), & (f) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was implicated solely based on the statements of co-accused Nikunj Singhal and Lakshay Agarwal, who claimed to have obtained fake invoices from the petitioner and Amit Jain. No recovery was made from the petitioner, and he was not initially named as an accused. The investigation concerning other accused persons was complete, and a criminal complaint had been filed against them, leading to their release on bail. The petitioner had been in custody for over four months, and the trial was expected to be lengthy. The respondent CGST Department contended that the petitioner was a key conspirator in a racket involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 21.16 crores without actual supply of goods, operating through 8 fake firms, with investigations ongoing for 46 other firms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the stage of investigation, the nature of allegations, and the period of incarceration, in light of Sections 132(1)(b), (c), & (f) r/w Section 132(5) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his implication was solely based on the statements of co-accused, no recovery was made from him, and he was not initially named. He highlighted that co-accused Nikunj Singhal and Lakshay Agarwal, who made statements against him, had already been granted bail, and their criminal complaint was filed. The petitioner emphasized his period of custody (since March 17, 2023) and the anticipated delay in trial. Reliance was placed on judgments in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, Lakshya Agarwal Vs. DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur & another, and Nikunj Singhal Vs. DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur. Respondent's arguments: The respondent CGST Department contended that the petitioner was a key conspirator in a significant fraud involving fake invoices and fraudulent ITC of Rs. 21.16 crores, and that investigations into other firms were ongoing. Reliance was placed on judgments in Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India, Sumit Dutta Vs. Union of India, and Mohammed Yunus Vs. State of Rajasthan.