Bhasker Jangir S/O Pooranmal Jangir vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's limited involvement. The Court noted that the petitioner was not connected with the management of the firms, was not a director of any of them, and his role was confined to arranging premises on rent without signing any fake bills. These factors were considered sufficient to grant bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to his appearance in court on all subsequent dates.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhasker Jangir, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The FIR was registered under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Commissionrate Jaipur. The petitioner was allegedly involved in arranging premises on rent for firms accused of wrongly claiming input tax credit amounting to Rs. 150 crore. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was merely paid Rs. 2,000 per month for opening and closing shops, did not sign fake bills, and was not instrumental in claiming the input tax credit. The State opposed the bail application, asserting the petitioner's awareness of the ulterior motive behind renting the premises and his role in arranging them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. considering his alleged role in arranging premises for firms accused of claiming input tax credit, in light of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he is not a director of any firm involved in claiming input tax credit. His role was limited to arranging premises on rent for a monthly payment of Rs. 2,000. He contended that he did not sign any fake bills and was not instrumental in the fraudulent claim of input tax credit. Respondent's (State) Contentions: The State opposed the bail application, highlighting the significant amount of input tax credit (Rs. 150 crore) wrongly claimed. They argued that the petitioner was aware of the ulterior motive for which the premises were rented and that his role in arranging the premises was evident, implicating him in the alleged offense involving five individuals.