Saurabh Jindal S/O Shri Satyendra Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the arguments from both sides. It acknowledged the admitted position that the petitioners had evaded tax and benefited from input tax credit amounting to Rs. 11.30 Crores. The Court noted the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Vinay Kant Ameta, where a deposit of Rs. 200 Crores was mandated for bail. Balancing the contentions and the facts, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to a significant condition. The Court ordered that each petitioner must deposit Rs. 2 Crores with the respondent Department, explicitly stating this deposit is to be made 'as under protest'. The bail applications were allowed with this condition, and the trial court was directed to take the receipt of these deposits on record before attesting the bail bonds. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioners on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and sureties, conditional upon the deposit.

Facts

The petitioners, Saurabh Jindal and Yashik Jindal, are seeking bail in connection with a case registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit. They have been in custody since September 14, 2022. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, as Director and Proprietor of certain companies, are responsible for tax evasion and have availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 11.30 Crores. The petitioners claim they have been falsely implicated, deny creating fake firms, and argue that the alleged offense is compoundable with a maximum punishment of 5 years, and that no show cause notices were issued. They also point out that a co-accused, Dipanshu Gupta, who availed ITC, was granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of tax evasion and availing input tax credit of Rs. 11.30 Crores? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contend they have been falsely implicated and are not responsible for creating fake firms. They argue that the offense is triable by a Magistrate, compoundable, and carries a maximum punishment of 5 years, implying that the trial may take a considerable time. They also assert that no show cause notices were issued to them. They rely on several judgments, including Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India and Dananjay Singh v. Union of India, to support their claim for bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Union of India) opposes the bail application, stating that the petitioners are responsible for tax evasion and have availed Rs. 11.30 Crores as input tax credit. They distinguish the case of Dipanshu Gupta by stating Gupta only received commission. The respondent cites the case of Vinay Kant Ameta, where the Apex Court directed a deposit of Rs. 200 Crores for bail, suggesting a similar condition for the petitioners. They rely on judgments such as Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. and Vinay Kant Ameta v. Union of India.