Himmat Singh Bhati S/O Suresh Singh Bhati vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties. While acknowledging the petitioners' arguments regarding parity with a co-accused and their period of custody, the Court also took into account the gravity of the alleged offences. The prosecution's case involves the generation of substantial amounts of fake bills and the fraudulent availment of input tax credit, indicating a serious economic offence. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. However, based on the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioners and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving serious economic offences under the CGST Act, where significant amounts of fake bills and input tax credit are allegedly involved, bail may be denied even if a co-accused has been granted bail, especially when the investigation is pending and the court deems the gravity of the offence to be high.

Facts

The petitioners, Ramchandra Vishnoi, Himmat Singh Bhati, and Hemant Tyagi, are seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. They were arrested in connection with Complaint No. IV(06)83/AE/JPR/2021 for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(B)(C) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners have been in custody since July 10, 2021. They argue they have been wrongly implicated and that a similarly situated co-accused, Praveen Jangir, who was allegedly the 'kingpin', has been granted bail. The prosecution contends that the petitioners generated fake bills worth Rs. 1180 crores, passed on input tax credit of Rs. 158 crores, and availed Rs. 80 crores of input tax credit, creating fake firms for this purpose. The investigation is stated to be pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of parity with a co-accused, considering the alleged gravity of the offence under Sections 132(1)(B)(C) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contend they have been wrongly implicated. They emphasize that a similarly situated co-accused, Praveen Jangir, who was allegedly the 'kingpin' of the case, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench, entitling the petitioners to bail on the ground of parity. They also point to the maximum punishment of five years and their period of custody since July 10, 2021, as reasons for granting bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Union of India, CGST) argues against granting bail, highlighting the alleged generation of fake bills amounting to Rs. 1180 crores, passing on input tax credit of Rs. 158 crores, and availing Rs. 80 crores of input tax credit. They further state that the investigation is still pending and that the petitioners created fake firms for availing input tax credit.