Raaj Jaiswal vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Through Senior Intelligence Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner was not taken into custody during the entire period of investigation, nor was a warrant of arrest sought by the investigating agency. The investigation had been completed, a prosecution report filed, and cognizance taken. The DGGI, on instruction, confirmed that there was nothing on record to suggest the petitioner would tamper with the evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner would cooperate with the trial and that the evidence was documentary and in the prosecution's possession. The Court also noted that another co-accused had been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench. Considering these facts, the Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by rejecting the anticipatory bail application, as custodial investigation was not required and there was no scope for tampering with evidence. The operative direction was to allow the anticipatory bail application, directing the petitioner to surrender before the court below within four weeks and be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding the bailers and the petitioner's appearance. The Court also expressed an expectation that charges would be framed at the earliest.

Facts

The petitioner, Raaj Jaiswal, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Jharkhand High Court apprehending arrest for offences under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) alleged that the petitioner, along with others, created fake firms using his employees' names to issue fake GST bills, passed ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), and obtained financial benefits, causing loss to the State. Despite the serious allegations, the petitioner was not taken into custody during the investigation, and no warrant of arrest was sought. A prosecution report, akin to a chargesheet, was filed after the investigation, and cognizance has been taken by the court. The DGGI, on instruction, stated there was nothing on record to suggest the petitioner would tamper with evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the allegations of creating fake firms, issuing fake GST bills, and passing ineligible ITC, constituting offences under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act and Sections 34, 120B, 174, 175, 201, 203, 204, 205, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he cooperated with the investigation, was not arrested during the investigation, and all evidence is documentary and in possession of the prosecution. He also pointed out that a co-accused was granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. The petitioner submitted that custodial investigation is no longer necessary and there is no scope for tampering with evidence. Revenue's arguments: The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) stated, on instruction, that there was nothing on record to suggest the petitioner could tamper with the evidence.