Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Gopal Lal vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances, the arguments advanced by both sides, and specifically noted that the alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years. The Court also took into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Vineet Jain' and the fact that the trial would likely take considerable time to conclude. Considering the period of custody, the Court deemed it fit and proper to grant bail without commenting on the merits or demerits of the case. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, with the stipulation to appear before the Trial Court or any transferred court on all subsequent dates. The observations made were limited to the bail application and would not impact the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, a partner in M/s Shree Gopal Metal Traders, filed a bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. He was arrested in connection with Case No. AC/EWIII/B/Jaipur/2025-26/1234, registered at the State GST Enforcement Wing-III, Jaipur, for alleged offences under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years, and a complaint had already been filed by the Department. He further relied on a Supreme Court order in 'Vineet Jain versus Union of India' which suggested bail in similar circumstances unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The petitioner argued that the trial would take considerable time and his continued custody would serve no purpose.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of BNSS, considering the nature of the alleged offence and the period of custody, in light of the Supreme Court's observations in 'Vineet Jain versus Union of India'? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and principles of bail jurisprudence). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner is falsely implicated. - The alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years. - A complaint has already been filed by the Department. - The Supreme Court in 'Vineet Jain versus Union of India' observed that accused should get bail unless there are extraordinary circumstances. - The trial will take considerable time to conclude. - Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Respondent's Arguments: - The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.