Sanjay Sehgal vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of Sanjay Sehgal. The primary reasoning for granting bail was the principle of parity. The Court noted that a co-accused, Rohit Rastogi, involved in identical matters, had already been admitted to the concession of bail by another bench of the High Court. The applicant's role was stated to be similar to that of the co-accused who had been enlarged on bail. The Court also considered that the offences under the CGST Act are punishable up to five years and referred to the law laid down in Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others. While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, including the alleged fraudulent ITC of Rs. 202 crores, the Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the court, with specific conditions including not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses, appearing on fixed dates, and not committing similar offences.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Sanjay Sehgal, the applicant, in connection with Case Crime No. 2 of 2022, under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant is accused of tax evasion through the operation of 44 bogus companies, allegedly using forged PAN and Aadhaar cards. The prosecution alleges that the applicant was the mastermind behind a scheme involving the fraudulent registration of fake firms and the issuance of fake bills, resulting in fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of approximately Rs. 202 crores. The applicant has been in jail since February 12, 2022. The complaint was filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Meerut Regional Unit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, considering the allegations of tax evasion and the amount of fraudulent ITC involved, under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017? The applicant argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He claimed parity with a co-accused, Rohit Rastogi, who was granted bail by another bench of the High Court in a similar matter (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8984 of 2022, decided on April 5, 2022), asserting that his role is similar to that of the co-accused. The applicant also highlighted that he has been in jail since February 12, 2022, and assured cooperation with the trial. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail plea but did not dispute the factum of parity. The court also considered the severity of the punishment, which is up to five years, and the law laid down in Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2.