Dipanshu Gupta S/O Late Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Dipanshu Gupta, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC. The case involves alleged offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was arrested on January 14, 2022. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner facilitated the issuance of approximately 909 fake invoices for approximately ₹5547 crore, resulting in a GST evasion of ₹904 crore, by obtaining a commission of 1-2% (approximately ₹55 crore). The petitioner contends that he was arrested without sufficient grounds, that there is no direct evidence of his involvement, and that he has cooperated with the investigation. The investigation is stated to be complete, and a charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner has been in custody since January 14, 2022.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court considered the arguments from both sides, including the petitioner's contention of false implication, lack of direct evidence, cooperation with the investigation, and the fact that the investigation is complete with a charge sheet filed. The Court also noted the petitioner's prolonged custody since January 14, 2022, and the potential for delay in the trial. While acknowledging the serious allegations made by the respondent, the Court found that the investigation concerning the petitioner was complete. The Court also took into account the cited precedents where bail was granted in similar economic offences. The Court reasoned that given the stage of the proceedings, the completion of the investigation concerning the petitioner, and the cited case law, it was appropriate to grant bail. The operative directions included furnishing a bail bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each, and appearing on dates fixed by the court or as and when required.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with alleged offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the gravity of the allegations and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that he has been falsely implicated without any basis. He contends that there is no corroborative evidence to support the allegations of his involvement in the alleged offences. He claims no direct connection with the entities involved in issuing fake invoices and that he has not gained any undue benefit. The petitioner asserts full cooperation during the investigation, which is stated to be complete with a charge sheet filed. He highlights that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence, which has been seized. He also points out that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is five years and argues that prolonged custody is not justified. He cites several High Court judgments where bail was granted in similar economic offences. Respondent's (Union of India) Arguments: The respondent opposes the bail application, alleging that the petitioner facilitated the issuance of fake invoices without actual supply of goods or services, and obtained a commission of 1-2% for this. The investigation has revealed the seizure of several documents indicating significant revenue loss due to the petitioner's actions. The respondent states that approximately 909 fake invoices worth ₹5547 crore were issued, with GST amounting to ₹904 crore, without actual supply. The petitioner is alleged to have received a commission of about ₹55 crore. The respondent further argues that the investigation into other entities involved is ongoing, but the investigation concerning the petitioner is complete with a charge sheet filed. They emphasize the serious nature of the allegations and cite several judgments where bail applications in similar cases were rejected.