Ajit Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Guman Singh Shekhawat vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court found no cogent reason to refuse bail to the applicant. The reasoning was based on the principle that prolonged detention without the prospect of an early trial is not justified, especially when the investigation is complete and the accused has no criminal antecedents. The Court directed the release of the applicant, Ajit Singh Shekhawat, on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each. The conditions imposed were that the applicant must fully cooperate in the trial, and shall not leave the country without court permission, failing which his bail bonds would be liable for cancellation. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajit Singh Shekhawat, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. IV(06)115/AE/JPR/2020. The FIR was filed by the Office of the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Jaipur, alleging offences under Sections 132(1)(B), (C), and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since December 15, 2021. The investigation is complete, and the offences are punishable with a maximum of five years' imprisonment and are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner argued that further detention would serve no purpose as the trial is unlikely to commence soon. The respondent, Union of India, opposed the bail, citing a similar case where a co-ordinate bench refused bail, and this refusal was not interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. IV(06)115/AE/JPR/2020 for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(B), (C), and (I) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering his period of custody and the stage of investigation. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he has no criminal antecedents, has been in custody since December 15, 2021, and the investigation is complete. He contended that the offences are punishable with a maximum of five years' imprisonment and are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. Further detention would serve no purpose as there is no chance of an early start of the trial. Respondent's Contentions: The Union of India opposed the bail application, relying on a precedent where a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had refused bail in an identical situation, and the Supreme Court had not interfered with that refusal.