Ankit Bansal S/O Shri Shriniwas vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) is applicable to the trial under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent failed to point out any provision in the Act of 2017 that excludes the procedural provisions of the Cr.P.C. or the B.N.S.S. Section 480(6) of the B.N.S.S. deals with the general procedure for bail in non-bailable offenses when the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence. The Court noted that the petitioner is facing trial for non-bailable offenses under Section 132(1) (b) (c) (f) & (l) of the Act of 2017. The Court found that the order-sheets of the trial court did not reveal any reasons for attributing the delay to the accused-petitioner. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of a similar provision (Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.) in Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu, the Court emphasized a liberal approach to bail under such circumstances, especially when the delay is not attributable to the accused and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or abscondence. The Court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 480(6) of the B.N.S.S. The petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds, with conditions including not tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, submitting his passport, remaining present for hearings, and regularly marking attendance at the police station.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankit Bansal, is seeking his third bail application in a criminal complaint filed by the Directorate of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. His first bail application was dismissed on June 18, 2025, with a direction for the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Subsequent attempts to seek clarification from the Supreme Court and file a second bail application before the High Court were withdrawn. The petitioner then filed a bail application before the trial court, arguing that over 90 days had passed since the first date fixed for evidence, and the trial had not concluded, entitling him to bail under Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.). The petitioner has been incarcerated for 16 months, and the maximum punishment prescribed is five years.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) is applicable to trials conducted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, given that the latter is a special statute? 2. Whether the delay in concluding the trial, exceeding 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence, warrants the grant of bail to the petitioner under Section 480(6) of the B.N.S.S., considering the petitioner has been in custody for 16 months and the maximum sentence is five years? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the trial court had taken cognizance on February 1, 2025, and despite multiple dates, the examination of the first witness (PW-1) remained incomplete. He contended that more than 90 days had passed since the first date for evidence, and the trial court had not concluded it, thus entitling him to bail under Section 480(6) of the B.N.S.S. He relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ratnambar Kaushik and Manish Sisodia, and a High Court judgment in Banwari Lal Kushwah. He further argued that the trial court's orders did not provide any justification for the delay beyond the permissible period under Section 480(6) of the B.N.S.S. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Union of India through DGGI) opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner was accused of an economic offense involving hundreds of crores and should be treated differently. They contended that Section 480(6) of the B.N.S.S. cannot be applied to matters under the Act of 2017, which is a special statute, and that the trial should be governed by the provisions of the Act of 2017. They also argued that the economic nature of the offense constituted a justified reason for the delay in concluding the trial.