Himani Munjal W/O Shri Ankush Munjar B/C Punjabi vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The reasoning appears to be based on the serious nature of the allegations involving significant tax evasion (over ₹24.25 crores) through the creation of fake firms and issuance of fake invoices. The fact that the investigation is ongoing and that a previous bail petition was dismissed on merits by the same court also weighed against granting bail. The court did not explicitly detail its reasoning on each specific sub-section of Section 132 of the CGST Act under which the offenses are alleged, but the overall dismissal indicates a finding that the petitioner has not made out a case for bail at this stage. The ratio decidendi would be that in cases of substantial alleged tax evasion involving fraudulent practices, and where a previous bail application has been dismissed on merits, bail is unlikely to be granted, especially if the investigation is still active. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Himani Munjal, is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She is in custody since August 3, 2018, in connection with Criminal Complaint No. 35/2018. The alleged offenses are under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, punishable under Section 132(1)(i) and (iv) of the CGST Act, read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act. The petitioner's counsel states that no witness has been examined for pre-charge evidence. The respondent, Union of India through the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, opposes the bail, stating the case is under investigation. Initially, fake invoices involving over ₹12 crores were alleged, but further investigation revealed invoices involving over ₹24.25 crores by creating fake firms. A previous bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits on September 10, 2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the stage of investigation and the amount of alleged tax evasion under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has been in custody since August 3, 2018, and no witness has been examined for pre-charge evidence, suggesting a delay in the proceedings. The respondent's counsel opposed the bail, highlighting that the investigation is ongoing. They contended that the alleged tax evasion has increased from over ₹12 crores to over ₹24.25 crores due to the creation of fake firms and issuance of fake invoices. The respondent also noted that a previous bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits by the court on September 10, 2018.