Mohit Vijay S/O Jeevan Lal Vijay vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. The Court noted that the complaint has been filed with complete details, and the trial has commenced. It was observed that no further documents are required for the purpose of the criminal case against the petitioners, and no recovery is needed from them. The Court found no evidence to support the apprehension that the petitioners would threaten witnesses. It was also noted that the offence is compoundable, although no compounding process has been initiated. Citing the duration of custody (450 days), the completion of investigation concerning the petitioners, and the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and other cited judgments, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing a bail bond and surety, not making inducements or threats, remaining present in court, not disputing identity, and surrendering passports. The Court explicitly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioners, Mohit Vijay and Kapil Vijay, filed bail applications under Section 439 CrPC. They were arrested on March 1, 2019, in connection with a criminal complaint filed at the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, for offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations are that they issued invoices benefiting companies that availed Input Tax Credit (ITC), and 36 such companies are listed. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for approximately 450 days. The revenue stated that investigation against over 1300 beneficiaries is ongoing and likely to take time. The petitioners argued that no further investigation is required against them, the offence is compoundable, and they have already spent a significant period in jail, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the nature of the economic offence and the duration of their custody, in light of Section 132 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the investigation is complete, documents have been seized, and no further investigation is required. They highlighted that the offence under the CGST Act is compoundable and the maximum punishment is five years. They have already been in custody for 450 days and sought bail, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and relying on judgments like Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and orders from a coordinate bench in Gaurav Maheshwari Vs. State. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue strongly opposed bail, stating that the petitioners committed a huge economic offence involving fraudulent and forged invoices for 34 companies, creating "ghost companies" to benefit 1878 customers across 21 states, causing significant loss of revenue. They noted that Rs. 30 crore has been recovered from customers who wrongly availed ITC. While admitting no specific investigation is pending against the petitioners, they apprehended interference with further investigation and potential influence on material witnesses.