Shiv Kumar Sharma S/O Late Shri Chokh Ram Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the second bail application. The reasoning provided was threefold: firstly, the petitioner is a senior citizen and has been in custody for approximately five months. Secondly, the evidence on record is documentary, and the prosecution did not present any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with evidence or witnesses. Thirdly, a co-accused had already been released on bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to admit the petitioner to regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The office was directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Shiv Kumar Sharma, filed a second bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. He was arrested in connection with a complaint filed by the CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 132(1)(i) and subsection (5) of the Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that a co-accused who was the Managing Director and beneficiary had been released on bail, and that the maximum sentence could be reduced. He also stated he had been in custody since October 10, 2020, and the challan had been presented, implying a lengthy trial. The respondent, Union of India, through the Superintendent Anti-Evasion CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate Jaipur, opposed the bail application.

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) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 132(1)(i) and subsection (5) of the Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated. He highlighted that a co-accused, who was the Managing Director and beneficiary of the company, had already been granted bail. The petitioner also pointed out that the maximum sentence for the alleged offences is five years, which could potentially be reduced to six months. Furthermore, he submitted that he had been in custody since October 10, 2020, the challan had been filed, and the conclusion of the trial was likely to be protracted. Respondent's Arguments: The Department (Union of India) strongly opposed the bail application.