Jatinder Manrao vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intellegence

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to regular bail. While acknowledging that the petitioner has been in custody since July 4th, 2018, the Court emphasized the gravity of the alleged economic offence involving a fraud of Rs. 19.50 Crores. The Court cited precedents from the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and The State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai, which establish that economic offences constitute a class apart and require a different approach in bail matters. These offences, involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge losses to public funds, are considered grave and pose a serious threat to the country's economy. Therefore, mere long custody during the trial period is not a ground for releasing the petitioner on bail in such cases. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Jatinder Manro, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is accused of involvement in a fraud involving fake sale invoices worth Rs. 128 Crores, without the supply of any material. The petitioner allegedly fraudulently availed and utilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) of over Rs. 19.50 Crores based on these fake invoices. The address of one of the involved entities, M/s Pingashk Enterprises, was found to be a residential flat. The petitioner was summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and recorded his statement on July 3rd and 4th, 2018, where he confessed to fraudulently availing and utilizing Rs. 19.50 Crores against fake invoices. He has been in custody since July 4th, 2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the amount involved, despite being in custody since July 4th, 2018? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated, no recovery is to be effected from him, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he should be released on bail. Respondent's arguments: The respondent opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner is involved in a heinous case of fraud amounting to Rs. 19.50 Crores. They asserted that economic offences constitute a class apart and require serious consideration, and mere long custody during the trial period is not a sufficient ground for release.