Manoj Vijay S/O Prahlad Vijay vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manoj Vijay, filed a bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in connection with proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur. The DGGI had filed a complaint against the petitioner for alleged GST evasion amounting to ₹706 Crores. The petitioner claims to be innocent and alleges fabrication of the case. He states he has been in custody since February 19, 2025, and was not informed of the grounds for his arrest. He also contends that the investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed, and co-accused have been granted bail by higher courts. The petitioner further argues that the case is primarily based on documentary and electronic evidence, and the witnesses are departmental officials, thus posing no risk of tampering. The respondent, DGGI, opposes the bail application, asserting that documentary evidence reveals revenue loss of ₹706 Crores due to the petitioner's alleged fraudulent activities. They highlight the petitioner's past involvement in two other GST evasion cases, one in 2021 where he was arrested and later granted bail, and another from 2019.
Held
The Court dismissed the bail application. The Court noted that the petitioner had claimed in his bail application that no cases were pending against him, whereas the respondent presented evidence of three pending cases. Two of these cases, involving the evasion of ₹6 Crores in tax, were related to Section 132 of the GST Act, and bail had been granted in one by this High Court and in the other by the trial court. The third case was related to the petitioner's conduct in judicial custody, where he was found in possession of a mobile phone, battery, charger, and earphones, leading to a case under Section 42 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to disclose these cases in his bail application, despite being aware of them. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was allegedly involved in criminal activities even while in custody. Considering the gravity of the offense, the petitioner's past conduct, his alleged involvement in ongoing criminal activities, and his failure to disclose material facts in his bail application, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of bail. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh bail application if the trial did not progress within six months.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the GST evasion case involving ₹706 Crores, considering his alleged involvement in fraudulent activities and past GST-related cases? (Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 438 of the CrPC). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent, falsely implicated, and has been in custody since February 19, 2025, without being informed of the grounds for arrest, violating Article 22 of the Constitution. He argues the investigation is complete, the charge sheet filed, and co-accused have been granted bail by higher courts. The case relies on documentary and electronic evidence, with witnesses being departmental officials, thus no risk of tampering. He cites several judgments supporting bail in such circumstances. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (DGGI) argues that documentary evidence shows revenue loss of ₹706 Crores due to the petitioner's continuous fraudulent activities. They point to the petitioner's prior involvement in two GST evasion cases, one in 2021 resulting in arrest and subsequent bail, and another from 2019. They also mention a case under Section 42 of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered against the petitioner for possessing a mobile phone, charger, battery, and earphones while in judicial custody. The respondent asserts that the petitioner has not disclosed these previous cases in his bail application and continues to engage in criminal activities even while in custody. They argue that the petitioner's past conduct and the gravity of the current offense do not warrant bail.
Sections Cited
Section 132, Section 42, Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order Reserved on :: 17/12/2025 Pronounced on :: 08/01/2026 izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk 2023 dh /kkjk 483 ds vUrxZr ;g tekur vkosnu i= izdj.k la[;k DGGI/ INT/ INTL/ 168/2025-Gr-I-O/oADJ-DGGI-ZU-JAIPUR vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 132 dsanzh; oLrq ,oa lsokdj vf/kfu;e 2017 esa tekur dk ykHk fn;s tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A
[2025:RJ-JP:51986] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-6426/2025] bl ekeys esa eky ,oa lsok dj vklwpuk egkfuns'kky;] t;iqj tksuy ;wfuV] t;iqj dh vksj ls vfHk;qDr eukst fot; ds fo:) vij eq[; egkuxj eftLVªsV ¼vkfFkZd vijk/k½ t;iqj egkuxj&f}rh; ds le{k dsUnzh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj vf/kfu;e] 2017 dh /kkjk 132 ds vUrxZr ifjokn izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlds vuqlkj izdj.k dh rF;kRed fLFkfr bl izdkj gS fd vfHk;qDr eukst fot; us lg vfHk;qDr ds lkFk feydj egkohj VªsfMax daiuh ds uke ls ,d tfVy] rduhdh :i ls n{k vkSj iz'kklfud izfdz;kvksa dks Nn~e :i ls <dus okyk QthZ pkyku rU= [kM+k djds 706 djksM+ :i;s dh th-,l-Vh- dh pksjh dh xbZ gS o jk"Vªh; jktLo O;oLFkk dks Hkh pqukSfr;ksa esa Mkyk gS A cgl lquh xbZA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ funksZ’k gSa] mls izdj.k esa >wBk Qalk;k x;k gS ] og fnukad 19-02-2025 ls vfHkj{kk esa gS] izkFkhZ dks fxjQ~rkjh dk dkj.k ugha crk;k x;k gS tks fd vkfVZdy 22 dk mYya?ku gS A izkFkhZ ds c;kuksa dh izfdz;k fof/k fo:) gS] vuqla/kku iw.kZ gk j vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS] ekeyk izFke Js.kh eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ;ksX; gS] lg vfHk;qDr xqyke Qjhn o ;'k pUnkuh ds tekur vkosnu i= ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd, tk pqds gSa A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd ;g ekeyk eq[; :i ls nLrkosth ,oa by Vªksfud lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gS rFkk lk{khx.k eq[;r% foHkkx ds vf/kdkjh gSa blfy;s lk{; o lk{khx.k dks fdlh Hkh rjg ls izHkkfor fd, tkus dh dksbZ vk”kadk ugha gS] vr% izkFkhZ dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkosA mUgksaus vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd, gSa%& (1) Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India MANU/RH//0901/2025 (3) Arun Jindal Vs. Union of India – Bail Application No. 59/2025 decided by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jaipur Metro- II on 11.03.2025
[2025:RJ-JP:51986] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-6426/2025] (4) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 (5) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 (6) P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine TS 3332 (7) P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 784 (8) Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449 (12) Siddharth Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676 (13) Daulat Samirmal Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2021 SCC Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410 (18) Chhidda Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Anr. (1998) 3 Krishna Murari Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13957 (21) P C Purohit Vs. Union of India MANU/RH/0247/2025 (22) Vishal Agarwal Vs. Union of India – S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4259/2024 decided on 12.09.2024 (25) Vishal Agarwal Vs. Union of India MANU/SCOR/121054/2024 (26) Ankit Bansal Vs./ Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2736 (27) Rishabh Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. – S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10718/2023 decided on 04.12.2023 (28) Gurmeet Singh Batra @ Sahil Vs. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine All 7467 (30) Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 648 (31) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/ 1492/ 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:51986] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-6426/2025] izR;FkhZ&ifjoknh foHkkx dh vksj ls mifLFkr fo}ku ofj"B vf/koDrk Jh Hkjr O;kl ¼,-,l-th-½ us tekur izkFkZuk i= dk fojks/k djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkap ,oa vuqla/kku esa nLrkosth lk{; izdV gq;h gS ftlds vuqlkj 706 djksM+ :i, dh jktLo gkfu gqbZ gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dk vkpj.k yxkrkj dj pksjh vkSj /kks[kk/kM+h dk jgk gS] izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) o"kZ 2021 esa th-,l- Vh- ls lacaf/kr izdj.k ntZ gqvk Fkk ftlesa izkFkhZ dks fnukad 26-03-2021 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k Fkk ] ftlesa mls jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 04-08-2021 dks tekur dh lqfo/kk nh xbZ gSA rRi'pkr~ ,d vkSj th-,l-Vh- ds izdj.k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 11-08-2025 dks tekur nh xbZ gS A og izdj.k Hkh o"kZ 2019 ls lacaf/kr jgk gS A bl izdkj vfHk;qDr ds fo:) iwoZ esa th-,l-Vh- ds nks izdj.k yafcr gSaA fnukad 03-11-2025 dks U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa jgus ds nkSjku vfHk;qDr ds dCts ls eksckbZy] pktZj] cSVjh o b;jQksu tsy esa gh cjken gq, gSa] ftlds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 42 fiztUl ,DV dk izdj.k ntZ fd;k x;k Fkk A bu rF;ksa dk mYys[k mlds }kjk tekur vkosnu i= o fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha fd;k gS A foHkkx@ifjoknh }kjk vius tokc esa mDr rF; vafdr fd, x, gS] mlh ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izdj.k yafcr gksus ds laca/k esa 'kiFki= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr tsy esa jgus ds nkSjku Hkh tsy ds fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha dj jgk gS rFkk og yxkrkj vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr jgk gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd iwoZ esa tks th-,l-Vh- ds izdj.k ntZ gq, og 6 djksM :i, jkf'k dh dj izoapuk ds laca/k esa jgs gSa] ekStwnk izdj.k 706 djksM :i, jkf'k dh dj izoapuk ls lacaf/kr gS A ;fn izkFkhZ dks tekur ij NksM+k x;k rks og iqu% blh izdkj dh xfrfof/k;ksa esa 'kkfey gks ldrk gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd foHkkx }kjk vfHk;qDr dks fxjQ~rkj djus ds laca/k esa dkj.k vafdr fd, x, gS] mlds fo:) nLrkosth lk{; fo|eku gS rFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 69&2 ds rgr mUgsa vf/kdkj izkIr gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd vfHk;qDr ds vkpj.k dks ns[krs gq, ek= vfHkj{kk vof/k ds
[2025:RJ-JP:51986] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-6426/2025] vk/kkj ij mls tekur dh lqfo/kk ugha nh tkuh pkfg, rFkk izkFkhZ U;k;ky; ds tekur laca/kh foo kf/kdkj dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A mudh vksj ls vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p; izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa%& (1) Dheeraj Singhal Vs. Union of India – S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3486/2024 decided on 08.08.2024 (14) Dheeraj Singhal Vs. Union of India MANU/ SCOR/ 107599/ 2024 (15) Lalit Goyal Vs. Union of India and Anr. - S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13042/2021 decided on 07.09.2021 (16) Lalit Goyal Vs./ Union of India & Anr. - Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3509/2022 decided on 26.08.2022 (17) Lalit Goyal Vs. Union of India - S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5702/2023 decided on 05.07.2023 (18) Sandeep Goyal Vs. Union of India MANU/RH/0493/2020 (19) Sandeep Goyal Vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0522/2020 (20) Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India MANU/SCOR/126580/2022 (22) Sagar Vs. State of UP & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584 (23) Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 9 [2025:RJ-JP:51986] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-6426/2025] fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjoknh&foHkkx dh vksj ls mijk r U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa ds vykok vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa lacaf/kr nLrkost is'k fd;s x;sA var esa mUgksaus tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA geus mHk;i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZa&fordksZa ij euu fd;k x;kA vkjksi i= ds lkFk izLrqr lk{;&lkexzh] nLrkostkr] ys[kc) c;kuksa o fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk voyk u fd;k x;k rFkk nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr fofHkUu U;kf;d fofu”p;ksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k rF;ksa ls izdV gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tekur vkosnu i= ds xzkm.M~l ds iSjk la[;k&,u esa Li"V rkSj ij vafdr fd;k gS fd mlds fo:) dksbZ Hkh izdj.k yafcr ugha gS rFkk uk gh og fdlh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k esa lafyIr jgk gS A tcfd blds foijhr ifjoknh dh vksj ls vius tokc esa izkFkhZ ds fo:) izdj.k yafcr gksuk crk, tkus ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls 'kiFki= esa Lo;a ds fo:) rhu izdj.k yafcr gksuk crk;k gS A mu rhuksa izdj.kksa ds vkns'kksa ds voyk u ls izdV gS fd nks izdj.k dj izoapuk ls jktLo gkfu ls lacaf/kr jgs gSa ftuesa ls ,d izdj.k esa blh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tekur dh lqfo/kk iznku dh xbZ gS rFkk nwljs izdj.k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tekur dh lqfo/kk iznku dh xbZ gS] ;s nksuksa izdj.k th-,l-Vh- dh /kkjk 132 ds laca/k esa jgs gSa rFkk rhljk izdj.k U;kf;d vfHkj{kk ds nkSjku mlds vkpj.k o mlls cjkenxh ls lacaf/kr jgk gSA U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa jgus ds nkSjku blls eksckbZy] cSVjh] pktZj o b;jQksu cjken gq, gS ftlds laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds fo:) /kkjk 42 fiztUl ,DV esa izdj.k ntZ fd;k x;k gS A bu izdj.kksa dk mYys[k izkFkhZ }kjk vius tekur vkosnu i= esa ugha fd;k x;k gS tcfd izkFkhZ dks bu lHkh eqdneksa ds lcls lqn`< tkudkjh Fkh A tsy ds nkSjku Hkh og vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr jgk gS A ;fn izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dks bl izdze ij tekur ij NksM+k tkrk gS rks og blh izdkj dh xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr gks ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDr ds fo:) iwoZ esa yafcr vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa] U;kf;d vfHkj{kk ds nkSjku tsy esa mlds vkpj.k o xfrfof/k;ksa dks
[2025:RJ-JP:51986] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-6426/2025] ns[krs gq, og U;k;ky; ds tekur ds foo kf/kdkj dk ykHk izkIr djus dk ik= ugha gS A vr% izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa] vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk o izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ds vkpj.k dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd, fcuk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= bl Lrj ij Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; izrhr ugha gksrk gS A ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr eukst fot; iq= izgykn fot; dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A pwafd izkFkhZ Qjojh 2025 ls vfHkj{kk esa gS vr% fopkj.k U;k;ky; ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os bl izdj.k dh vUoh{kk 'kh?kz djus dk iz;kl djsaA vfHk;qDr ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd og fopkj.k esa lg;ksx djs A ;fn bl vkns'k dh 6 ekg dh vof/k esa fopkj.k esa lkjoku izxfr ugha gksrh gS rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr iqu% tekur vkosnu i= izLrqr djus gsrq Lora= jgsxkA (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J Rishikesh/reserve
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.