Kewal Chand Jain S/O Jawahar Mal Jain vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on five factors: firstly, the maximum sentence provided under the CGST Act, 2017, for the alleged offence is 5 years. Secondly, the respondent-department did not express any apprehension of the petitioner absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Thirdly, the challan had already been presented, and the trial was not proceeding due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Fourthly, the petitioner had deposited INR 1,54,000/- with the department to demonstrate his bona fides. Lastly, the petitioner is 68 years old and not required for any further custodial interrogation or investigation. The Court directed that the petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The operative direction was to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial court for compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Kewal Chand Jain, aged 68, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He was arrested in connection with File No. IV(06)115/AE/JPR/2020, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(B) & (C) read with 132(1)(I) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed false implication and stated that the challan had been filed. He highlighted that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is 5 years and that he had deposited INR 1,54,000/- under protest. The total demand in dispute was INR 9.32 Crores. The petitioner had been in custody since February 25, 2021, and argued that the trial was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent-department confirmed the deposit made by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under Sections 132(1)(B) & (C) read with 132(1)(I) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, were not followed. He contended that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is 5 years. To demonstrate bona fides, he had deposited INR 1,54,000/- under protest. He further submitted that he is 68 years old, and due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the trial is not progressing, leading to prolonged incarceration. He also pointed out that the offence is non-bailable and cognizable, but offenses involving amounts up to INR 5 Crores are bailable. He sought release on bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent-department opposed the bail application but confirmed the deposit of INR 1,54,000/- made by the petitioner.