Gagan Sharma S/O Sh. Ganpat Lal Sharma vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Gagan Sharma, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The application arose from a complaint registered at the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Office, concerning an offense punishable under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for over 40 days. The amount in dispute is Rs. 1,61,68,425/-, which the petitioner has deposited. The petitioner claims to have been falsely implicated and argues that the offense is compoundable. The investigation is ongoing, and a charge-sheet has not yet been filed.

Held

The Court considered the contentions put forth by both the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The reasoning for this decision is not explicitly detailed beyond the general consideration of the presented arguments and circumstances. The operative direction is that the accused-petitioner, Gagan Sharma, shall 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, for his appearance on all hearing dates. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Gagan Sharma, is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with the offense under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated, has been in custody for over 40 days, and has deposited the entire disputed amount of Rs. 1,61,68,425/-. He further argues that the offense is compoundable and that a similarly situated co-accused, Kamal Chand Bothra, has been granted bail. The petitioner also submits that the maximum punishment is 5 years and the conclusion of the trial may take a considerable time. Reliance is placed on Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. and Ketan Suresh Pawar & Anr. Vs. Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant & Anr. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State of Rajasthan and Union of India) opposes the bail application, asserting that the petitioner is the "Kingpin" in the case and provided his machinery for manufacturing cigarettes to a co-accused. They argue that economic offenses pose a serious threat to the national economy and that the petitioner is a habitual offender. The respondent also notes that the investigation is ongoing and no charge-sheet has been filed. Numerous judgments were cited in support of their opposition.