Dushyant Chaudhary vs. Union Of INDIA And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The applicants, Dushyant Chaudhary, Sanjay Jain, and Nikhil Goel, filed applications for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are facing trial in cases related to alleged offenses under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, initiated by the Department DGGI, Ghaziabad Unit. The applicants were initially granted interim regular bail by the Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Supreme Court subsequently withdrew this concession on March 24, 2023, directing prisoners released under emergent circumstances to surrender within 15 days. The applicants have not surrendered to custody as per this order.
Held
The Court held that the applicants' prayer for regular bail could not be considered because they are not in custody. The Supreme Court's order dated March 24, 2023, had withdrawn the concession of interim regular bail granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and directed prisoners to surrender within 15 days. The applicants concededly failed to surrender as per this order. Therefore, their applications for regular bail were dismissed for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directive. The Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying GST offenses.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given that they have not surrendered to custody as per the Supreme Court's order dated March 24, 2023. Arguments for the Applicants: The applicants' counsel argued that they were initially granted interim bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the judgment does not record any further arguments presented by the applicants' counsel regarding their entitlement to regular bail after the withdrawal of the interim concession. Arguments for the Revenue (Union of India): The counsel for the Union of India pointed out the Supreme Court's order dated March 24, 2023, which withdrew the interim bail concession and mandated surrender within 15 days. The revenue contended that the applicants have failed to comply with this order.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(1)(i), Section 439
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73727 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46316 of 2024 Applicant :- Dushyant Chaudhary Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Ritaj Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Parv Agarwal Alongwith
(1) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46321 of 2024 Applicant :- Sanjay Jain Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Ritaj Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Parv Agarwal (2) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14532 of 2025 Applicant :- Nikhil Goel Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Ritaj Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Parv Agarwal Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicants-Dushyant Chaudhary, Sanjay Jain and Nikhil Goel have filed the above separate applications under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case No. 4778 of 2021; titled Union of India vs. Dushyant Chaudhary, Complaint Case No. 6085 of 2021; titled Union of India vs. Sanjay Jain and Case No. 339 of 2021; titled counsel for applicants-accused that the applicants were extended the concession of interim regular bail pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition (C) No. 01/2020, because of breakout of pandemic Covid-19. Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India has pointed out that subsequently vide order dated 24th March, 2023, the Apex Court had withdrawn the said concession and had given 15 days period to the prisoners to surrender, who were released from custody in emergent situation. Concededly, the applicants have not surrendered till date, and their applications seeking regular bail were dismissed for non- compliance of the order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the applicants are not in custody, therefore, their prayer for regular bail cannot be considered. The applications are dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Brijesh BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.