Sanchit Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Sanchit Gupta. The Court considered the submissions of both sides, the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the supporting evidence, and the reformative theory of punishment, along with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Citing the Apex Court's dictum in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, the Court found it to be a case for bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with trial proceedings, not tampering with witnesses, and not indulging in illegal activities. The Court clarified that these observations were strictly for the bail application and not on the ultimate merits of the case. The Court also emphasized the verification of sureties and the possibility of bail cancellation upon breach of conditions.

Facts

The applicant, Sanchit Gupta, sought bail in a case registered under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that M/s. Shree Shyam Ji Traders, Delhi, of which Archit Agrawal is the proprietor, fraudulently availed inward Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 4.76 Crores from two firms. The applicant, an employee of M/s. Shree Shyam Ji Traders, was arrested after his statement was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that Archit Agrawal, the main beneficiary, was not arrested or made an accused, and that the alleged fraudulent ITC amount was subsequently enhanced. The applicant also argued that no proceedings under Section 74 or attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act had been initiated, and the offense was triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of three years. The applicant had been in jail for over seven months and had no criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case DGGI/ARU/Gr.B/ST No. 29 of 2020 under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the allegations of fraudulent inward ITC and his role as an employee. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. - The proprietor of M/s. Shree Shyam Ji Traders, Archit Agrawal, who is the main beneficiary, has not been arrested or made an accused. - The applicant, an employee, was arrested after his statement was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, shifting responsibility. - The alleged fraudulent ITC amount was enhanced to make the offense non-bailable. - No proceedings under Section 74 or attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act have been initiated. - The offense is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of three years, and the applicant has been in jail for over seven months with no criminal history. Revenue's Arguments: - The learned A.G.A. and counsel for the Union of India opposed the bail prayer but could not dispute the facts presented by the applicant.