Ronak Khandelwal S/O Shri Kishanlal Pitliya vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on several factors: the alleged offences are triable by a magistrate; a complaint has already been filed; the tax liability has not yet been determined; the petitioner has been in custody since December 26, 2024; there are bleak chances of the trial concluding in the near future; the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents of a similar nature; and there is a low rate of conviction in such offences. The Court explicitly stated that these observations were made without commenting on the merits or demerits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, with the condition to appear before the Trial Court on all subsequent dates and when called upon. The petitioner was also directed not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, failing which the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ronak Khandelwal, proprietor of M/s Ridhi Enterprises, is seeking bail in a case registered for offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) & 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was arrested on December 26, 2024. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner availed fake/bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) for firms opened by him and his employees based on invoices without actual supply of goods. The tax liability has not yet been determined by the Department, and a complaint has been filed before the Economic Offences Court, Jaipur. The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, the offences are triable by a magistrate, and the trial will take a considerable time to conclude. He relies on an Apex Court order in Rajiv Jindal v. State of UP.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering the alleged offences are triable by a magistrate and the trial is likely to take time to conclude, as argued by the petitioner, relying on the principle laid down in Rajiv Jindal v. State of UP? 2. Whether the seriousness of the alleged tax evasion, involving crores of rupees in claimed ITC, warrants denial of bail, as argued by the State? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that he has been falsely implicated, the offences are triable by a magistrate with a maximum punishment of five years, and the trial will be protracted. He cites the Apex Court's observation in Rajiv Jindal v. State of UP that bail should not be denied in cases triable by a magistrate in the absence of antecedents. He also notes that his tax liability has not yet been determined and he has been in custody since December 26, 2024. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State vehemently opposes the bail application, arguing that tax evasion significantly impacts the State's economy and poses a serious threat to the nation. The petitioner is alleged to have wrongly claimed input tax credit (ITC) of crores of rupees, and the seriousness of these alleged offences justifies denying bail.