Abhinay Jain vs. Union On INDIA And Another

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Abhinay Jain, until the conclusion of the inquiry by the Proper Officer under Section 70(1) of the CGST Act or until assessment is made, whichever is earlier. The decision was based on the principle of parity, as the applicant's case was found to be identical to his co-accused brother, Akshat Jain, who had been granted anticipatory bail. The Court acknowledged the revenue's concession regarding the identical nature of the cases. While the revenue raised a jurisdictional issue, the Court proceeded to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, emphasizing the applicant's right to anticipatory bail given the circumstances and the precedent set by the co-accused. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount, along with specific conditions regarding cooperation, non-interference, and travel restrictions. The Proper Officer was permitted to file an application for cancellation if the applicant failed to appear or if unforeseen circumstances arose.

Facts

The applicant, Abhinay Jain, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to a notice issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The applicant, a director of M/s. Mahaveer Transmissions Ltd., claimed his case was identical to his co-accused brother, Akshat Jain, who had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench. The applicant asserted no prior criminal history and a commitment to cooperate with the inquiry. He also alleged false implication due to business rivalry. The application was summarily rejected by the court of session. The revenue opposed the application, raising a jurisdictional issue as the matter related to Gurugram, Haryana, but conceded the applicant's case was identical to the co-accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with his co-accused brother, Akshat Jain, who was granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of this Court, considering the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that his case is identical to his co-accused brother, Akshat Jain, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench. He also contended that he has no previous criminal history and will fully cooperate with the inquiry. Furthermore, he alleged false implication due to business rivalry and the likelihood of arrest by the police. He relied on the principle of parity. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue opposed the application, primarily raising a jurisdictional objection, stating that the matter pertains to Gurugram, Haryana, and thus this Court lacks jurisdiction. However, the revenue conceded that the applicant's case is identical to the co-accused who was enlarged on bail.