Mahender Mangal S/O Shri Ramesh Chand vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. While acknowledging the petitioner's arguments regarding the duration of custody, the nature of the offence, and the lack of show cause notices, the Court also took into account the seriousness of the allegations presented by the respondent. The respondent's contention that the petitioner and others had claimed a substantial amount of input tax credit (Rs. 30.11 Crores) without actual movement of goods, and that the total claimed ITC by the group was in thousands of crores, weighed heavily on the Court's decision. The pendency of the investigation was also a significant factor. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that, in light of the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the alleged offences, it was not a fit case to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahender Mangal, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The application was in connection with a case registered by the Office of the Commissioner, CGST Jaipur (PS) for alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody for a significant period. The complaint has been filed, and the offence is stated to be triable by a Magistrate, compoundable, with a maximum punishment of five years. The petitioner argued that the trial might take a long time and that no show cause notices were issued to him. The respondent CGST Department contended that the petitioner and others had formed various firms and claimed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 30.11 Crores without any actual transportation of goods. They further submitted that the total ITC claimed by the petitioner and co-accused runs into thousands of crores and that the investigation is still pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner has been falsely implicated. - The petitioner has been in custody for a long time. - The offence is triable by a Magistrate and is compoundable, with a maximum punishment of five years. - The conclusion of the trial may take a considerable amount of time. - No show cause notices were issued to the petitioner. Respondent's (CGST Department) Arguments: - The petitioner and others allegedly made in various firms and claimed input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 30.11 Crores without any transportation of goods. - The total ITC claimed by the petitioner and co-accused amounts to thousands of crores. - The investigation against the petitioner is still pending.