Suresh Jajra Son Of Late Shri Bal Krishan Jajra vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Suresh Jajra, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The application arose from Case No.DGGI/INV/GST/3064/2021-Gr-B-O/O ADG-DGGI-JZU-Jaipur, concerning an offense under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. His previous bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur. The petitioner claimed wrongful implication, stating he was not the owner or partner of Ayodhya Food Products, and had retracted his statement made under Section 70 of the GST Act. He also argued that statements of co-accused and others could not be used against him, and that the maximum punishment was five years, with the trial likely to be lengthy. He further pointed out that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail.
Held
The Court, considering the contentions put forth by both counsel and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits, deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The Court allowed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, Suresh Jajra, 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. The condition for bail included his appearance before the court concerned on all dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. No specific issue was left undecided; the court proceeded to grant bail based on the presented arguments and circumstances.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in view of the allegations of evading GST of approximately Rs.54 Crores, the petitioner's alleged role as the main culprit, and the pendency of investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was wrongly implicated, was not the owner or partner of the firm in question, and had retracted his statement under Section 70 of the GST Act. He argued that statements of co-accused and other persons could not be read against him. He also highlighted the maximum punishment of five years and the potential for a lengthy trial, citing the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused (Naresh Chandra Jajra and Abhishek Gehlot) as precedent. He relied on judgments including Kishore Wadhwani Vs. State of MP and Dananjay Singh Vs. UOI. Respondent's (Union of India) Arguments: The respondent opposed the bail application, stating the petitioner had evaded GST of around Rs.54 Crores and was the main culprit. They argued that statements made under Section 70 of the GST Act by co-accused and other witnesses clearly implicated the petitioner. The respondent emphasized that economic offenses should be treated with greater gravity, citing Apex Court pronouncements, and noted that investigation was still pending with no chargesheet filed. They relied on judgments such as PV Ramana Reddy Vs. UOI and Vinaykant Ameta Vs. UOI.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1), Section 70, Section 439
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 04/08/2022
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of Case No.DGGI/INV/GST/3064/2021-Gr-B- O/O ADG-DGGI-JZU-Jaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 132(1) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, regarding which bail application No.187(2022) (CIS No.2383/2022) has been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur vide order dated 19.07.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. Petitioner is behind the bar since long. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is neither owner of Ayodhya Food Products or nor partner of the firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-11477/2022] that petitioner and other co-accused had retracted the statement given by him under Section 70 of GST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that statement given by co-accused and other persons cannot be read against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that maximum punishment in this case is five years and conclusion of trial may take long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that similarly situated co- accused Naresh Chandra Jajra and Abhishek Gehlot were enlarged on bail by this Court and by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. So, petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in the case of Kishore Wadhwani Vs. State of MP; 2020(43)GSTL 145 (M.P.), Dananjay Singh Vs. UOI (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18825/2021 Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1914/2022 Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4086/2022 dated 13.04.2022), Khet Singh & Anr. Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.861/2021 dated 25.01.2021), CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal (Del.)(2010)328 ITR 384(Del), Vikas Bansal Vs. UOI (Bail Application No.2381 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021).
Learned counsel for the respondent (UOI) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner had evaded GST of around Rs.54 Crores. He is main culprit of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that co-accused and other witnesses during the (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11477/2022] statement under Section 70 of GST Act clearly stated that petitioner is responsible person. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncement clearly stated that the matter pertains to economic offence, should not be dealt as a general case. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that investigation is still pending. Chargesheet has not been filed against the petitioner. So, looking to the gravity of the offence, bail be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments: PV Ramana Reddy Vs. UOI, Vinaykant No.18243/2021), Sohan Singh Vs. UOI (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.2555/2022), Abhishek Application No.6304/2021), Mahender Mangal Vs. UOI (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.13041/2021), Bail Application No.13104/2021), Bharat Raj Kunj Vs. CGST Commissionerate (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16341/2019), Mohd. Yunus Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15702/2019), Sumit Dutta Vs. UOI (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3103/2022), Citation- 2022(58) GSTL 15-Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Citation-2022(58) GSTL 20-Hon’ble High Court, Citation- 2020(40) GSTL 451-Hon’ble Orissa High Court, Paritosh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.348/2021), Paresh Nathaal Chauhan Vs. State of (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11477/2022] Gujarat
(Criminal
Miscellaneous
Application No.6237/2020).
Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Suresh Jajra Son Of Late Shri Bal Krishan Jajra shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Seema/141
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.