Kapil Vijay@Kapil Vijayavargiya S/O Shri Ram Kalyan Vijay vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail. The Court noted that the complaint had already been filed with complete details before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, and the trial had commenced. It found that the apprehension of the petitioners threatening witnesses was not substantiated by any evidence placed on record. While acknowledging that no process for compounding the offence had been undertaken, the Court considered the petitioners' prolonged custody of 450 days, the fact that no further investigation or recovery was required for the purpose of the case, and the law laid down by the Apex Court and its own coordinate bench. The Court found it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to submitting a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount, and imposed stringent conditions similar to those in the Sanjay Chandra case, including appearing in court on fixed dates, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and surrendering passports. The liberty was reserved for the CBI to apply for modification or recall of the order if any condition was violated.

Facts

The petitioners, Mohit Vijay and Kapil Vijayavargiya, filed bail applications under Section 439 CrPC in connection with a criminal complaint for offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (j), and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur. The petitioners had been arrested on March 1, 2019, and were in judicial custody for approximately 450 days. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were involved in fraudulent issuance of invoices, creating fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) for various companies, resulting in a significant loss of revenue. The investigation involved over 1300 beneficiaries and recovery of Rs. 30 crore. The petitioners argued that the investigation was substantially complete, the offence was compoundable, and the maximum punishment was five years, with which they had already served a significant portion in custody. They also cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail given their prolonged period of custody and the stage of investigation, considering the nature of the economic offences alleged under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (j), and (i) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that they had been in judicial custody for 450 days, and the investigation was substantially complete, with documents seized and placed before the court. They argued that the offence under the CGST Act is compoundable and the maximum sentence is five years, a significant portion of which they have already undergone. They also highlighted the ongoing investigation against a large number of beneficiaries, suggesting the process would be lengthy. Furthermore, they cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for their release on bail with conditions, relying on judgments like Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and orders from a coordinate bench in Gaurav Maheshwari Vs. State. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Union of India) argued that the petitioners were involved in fraudulent activities, creating fake invoices and causing huge revenue loss. They stated that the investigation was ongoing against more than 1300 beneficiaries and that the petitioners might interfere with further investigation or influence material witnesses. While acknowledging that no specific investigation was pending against the petitioners themselves, they opposed bail on the grounds of potential interference.