Rohit Rastogi vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Facts

The applicant, Rohit Rastogi, is seeking bail in Case Crime No. 928 of 2021, registered at Police Station Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, under Sections 132(1)(b) and (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Ghaziabad Regional Unit is the investigating authority. The applicant has been in jail since September 10, 2021. His bail application was previously rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, on January 28, 2022. The applicant claims to have falsely implicated and that his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act was extracted under duress. He has closed down 11 offending firms and has appeals pending for other transactions. He also claims no criminal history apart from this case and seeks parity with a co-accused, Gaurav Gupta, who was granted bail.

Held

The Court found merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the applicant's contention that his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act was obtained under duress and therefore unreliable, coupled with the fact that he has closed down offending firms and has pending appeals for other transactions. The absence of any criminal history apart from the present case and the claim of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail also seem to have weighed in the Court's decision. The Court explicitly stated that it was making no observations on the merits of the case. The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to certain conditions including not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, appearing before the trial court, and not making any inducements or threats. The ratio decidendi is that if a statement is allegedly obtained under duress and the applicant demonstrates other mitigating factors such as closure of firms, pending appeals, and no prior criminal record, bail may be granted without prejudice to the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the statement of the applicant under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which is claimed to be self-incriminatory and extracted under coercion, can be relied upon to connect the applicant with the alleged crime? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail, considering his alleged false implication, closure of offending firms, pending appeals, lack of criminal history, and parity with a co-accused? Contentions of the Petitioner (Rohit Rastogi): - The applicant has been falsely implicated. - His statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act was made under coercion and duress, and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon it. - He has closed down 11 offending firms following due process. - For other transactions, he has exercised his right of appeal, which is pending. - He has no criminal history apart from this case. - He seeks parity with co-accused Gaurav Gupta, who was enlarged on bail. - He undertakes not to abscond, will cooperate with proceedings, and will not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Contentions of the Opposite Party (Union of India and Others): - The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions made by the applicant's counsel from the record. - The learned AGA does not dispute that the applicant has no criminal history apart from this case.