Vikalp Jain vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Others

Held

The High Court held that no interference was required in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The Court considered the submissions advanced by both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the orders of the lower courts. The Court found no grounds to set aside the order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, which imposed the condition of depositing Rs. 1 Crore, nor the order of the Sessions Judge, Meerut, which dismissed the revision against it. The reasoning implicitly accepted the respondent's contention that the petitioner was involved in significant tax evasion and had failed to comply with a previously upheld bail condition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should not interfere with bail conditions imposed by lower courts, especially when such conditions have been previously upheld by a coordinate bench and relate to substantial alleged tax evasion, unless there are compelling reasons demonstrating illegality or perversity. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Vikalp Jain, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 19, 2019, by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. This order rejected his plea to waive or reduce a bail condition requiring him to deposit Rs. 1 Crore within three months of his release. He also challenged a subsequent order dated July 26, 2019, by the Sessions Judge, Meerut, which dismissed his criminal revision against the Magistrate's order. The petitioner was involved in Case No. 17 of 2018 under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act, initiated by the CGST department (CIU), Noida, concerning alleged tax evasion of Rs. 94 Crores. The petitioner claimed innocence and false implication, stating no show cause notice was issued. He argued the bail condition was harsh and illegal and that his financial status was not considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, to deposit Rs. 1 Crore within three months of release on bail, as a condition for Case No. 17 of 2018 under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act, is harsh and illegal, requiring waiver or reduction, considering the petitioner's financial status. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He argued that the department had not issued any show cause notice regarding the alleged tax evasion of Rs. 94 Crores. The bail condition requiring a deposit of Rs. 1 Crore was considered harsh and illegal. His prayer to reduce this amount was rejected without considering his financial status. Respondent's arguments: The Union of India vehemently opposed the prayer, submitting that the applicant was actively involved in evading GST to the tune of more than Rs. 94 Crores, violating the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and its rules. They stated the petitioner was enlarged on bail by an order dated December 11, 2018, but had not complied with the condition to deposit Rs. 1 Crore within three months. They further noted that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had previously rejected his application to quash this condition on March 28, 2019, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12504 of 2019.