Dashrath Singh S/O Shri Swai Singh vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dashrath Singh, is seeking his third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has been in custody since March 11, 2022, for over a year. The case involves alleged offences under Sections 69, 132(1)(B), (C), and (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution's case, as per the complaint, suggests that the petitioner was an employee of one Sanjay Garg, receiving Rs. 12,000 per month for operating fake firms. The petitioner contends that the main allegations are against Sanjay Garg, and he is merely an employee. The trial has not yet concluded, and the offences are triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner also claims to have no prior criminal antecedents.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application, ordering the enlargement of the petitioner, Dashrath Singh, on bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner being in custody for over a year, the pendency of the trial, and the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of five years. The Court also noted the petitioner's submission that he was merely an employee receiving a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 12,000 from the main accused, Sanjay Garg, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The Court explicitly stated that the bail was granted looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, with one surety being a resident of Jaipur Metropolitan or Jaipur District, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. He was also conditioned not to leave India without the prior permission of the trial Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the prolonged period of incarceration and the pendency of the trial, despite the nature of the alleged economic offence? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 439 Cr.P.C. and principles of bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been in jail for over a year, the trial has not concluded, and the offences are triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years. He emphasized that he was merely an employee receiving a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 12,000 from the main accused, Sanjay Garg, and has no criminal antecedents. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court and High Court judgments concerning bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Union of India through CGST) opposed the bail application, arguing that a subsequent bail application requires a change in circumstances. They contended that economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracy and involving significant loss of public funds should be viewed seriously and considered grave. Reliance was placed on various High Court judgments concerning bail in economic offences.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Section 132 (1) (B), Section 132 (1) (C), Section 132 (1) (1), Section 439 Cr.P.C.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order Date of Order :::: 28th April, 2023 ###
Instant 3rd application has been preferred under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, namely Dashrath Singh in connection with Case bearing No.IV (06)/221/AE/JPR/2021 registered at Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 69, 132 (1) (B) (C) & 132 (1) (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.03.2022, almost more than one year has passed but till date the trial has not been concluded. Offences are triable by the Magistrate and the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years and also fine. As per Para No.15.4 of the complaint, the
[2023/RJJP/008313] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2656/2023] petitioner has told that Sanjay Garg was operating these fake firms and Dashrath Singh used to receive Rs.12,000/- per month for this work from Sanjay Garg. The main allegation has been levelled against Sanjay Garg and the petitioner was merely his employee for fixed remuneration of Rs.12,000/- per month and he has been made an accused on account of being an employee of Sanjay Garg. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the trial of the case will take a long time to conclude. Therefore, looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case, the bail application of the petitioner may be granted.
During the course of arguments, in support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Ratnambar No.10319/2022 dt.05.12.2022 Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, (ii) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & India, in SB CRLMP NO.9662/2022 dt. 09.09.2022 RHCB Jaipur.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/CGST has strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the present application is not maintainable for the reason that to maintain a subsequent/successive bail application, the change of circumstance is required. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences.
During the course of arguments, in support of his submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/CGST, has placed reliance upon the following judgments :- (i) Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India, in MCRC No.3919/2022 dt.15.07.2022 High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, (ii) Lalit Goyal Vs.
[2023/RJJP/008313] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2656/2023] Union of India & Another, in SB CRLB No.13042/2021 dt. 07.09.2021 RHCB Jaipur (iii) Rishiraj Swami Vs. Union of India & Another, in SB CRLMB No.18092/2021 dt.11.02.2022 RHCB Jaipur and (iv) No.14670/2021 dt.28.01.2022 RHCB Jaipur.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner and learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for respondent/CGST. Perused the material made available on record as well as the judgments cited herein-above by both the respective Counsel. In the present case, the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.03.2022 and almost more than one year has passed. The trial is still pending. Offences are triable by the Magistrate and the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also fine. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. As per Para No.15.4 of the complaint, the petitioner has told that Sanjay Garg was operating these fake firms and Dashrath Singh used to receive Rs.12,000/- per month for this work from Sanjay Garg. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation has been levelled against Sanjay Garg and the petitioner was merely his employee for fixed remuneration of Rs.12,000/- per month and he has been made an accused on account of being an employee of Sanjay Garg. Therefore, looking to the overall facts & circumstances of the present case but without expressing any opinion on the merits/ demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is, hereby, ordered that the accused-petitioner, namely Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Swai Singh shall be enlarged on bail;
[2023/RJJP/008313] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2656/2023] provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each (out of which one surety shall be resident of Jaipur Metropolitan or Jaipur District) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so with the condition that he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the trial Court. (CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J. ASHOK/
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.