Dishu Jain vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Facts

The applicant, Dishu Jain, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against a summoning order dated 02.11.2021 issued by the Superintendent, Central GST Commissionerate, Meerut, under Sections 70 and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. The dispute involves an amount of approximately Rs. 6.18 crore. The applicant's case is argued to be identical to that of Rajat Maheshwari, a partner in the firm, who was granted interim anticipatory bail by the High Court on 17.12.2021, subsequently confirmed on 06.01.2022. The applicant claims no criminal history and assures cooperation with GST authorities. The revenue opposed the bail but could not dispute the parity with the co-accused's bail order.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was the parity of the applicant's case with that of co-accused Rajat Maheshwari, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court considered the nature of the accusation and the fact that a co-accused, a partner in the firm, had been granted similar relief. The Court directed that the applicant, Dishu Jain, be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned GST Officer. Conditions were imposed, including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, and not leaving India without prior court permission, with passport deposit. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where a co-accused in a similar position has been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled to similar relief, provided they cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the summoning order dated 02.11.2021, issued under Sections 70 and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, for an alleged offence involving approximately Rs. 6.18 crore? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that their case is identical to that of Rajat Maheshwari, a partner in the firm, who was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. They emphasized the parity of the case and assured full cooperation with the GST authorities. The applicant also stated they have no criminal history. Revenue's Arguments: The opposite parties (Union of India and CGST Department) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. They raised concerns about the applicant's potential non-cooperation with the department during proceedings. However, they could not dispute the fact that a co-accused, Rajat Maheshwari, had been granted anticipatory bail.