Kishor Kumar Moolani S/O Shri Meerchu Mal vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kishor Kumar Moolani, is seeking bail in connection with a case registered at the State GST District Jaipur for offences under Section 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. He has been in judicial custody since April 3, 2025, and a charge-sheet was filed on May 30, 2025. The petitioner claims to have been falsely implicated and has no criminal antecedents. The revenue, represented by learned Additional Govt. Advocates, opposes the bail, citing allegations of bogus supply and tax evasion amounting to ₹9.54 Crores.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. It considered the Supreme Court's precedents in Vineet Jain, Vishal Agarwal, and Ashutosh Garg, noting the petitioner's custody since April 3, 2025, and the charge-sheet filing on May 30, 2025. The Court acknowledged that even with the alleged tax evasion under Section 132, the maximum punishment is five years with a fine. The petitioner had already undergone approximately two and a half months of incarceration, and the trial was expected to take considerable time. The Court reasoned that the evidence would primarily be documentary and electronic, with ocular evidence from official witnesses, mitigating concerns of tampering or influencing. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to grant bail. The petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to several conditions including not leaving the country without permission, cooperating with the trial, not tampering with evidence, and not influencing witnesses.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Section 132 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the period of custody undergone? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated, has no criminal antecedents, and has been in custody since April 3, 2025. He relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Vineet Jain v. Union of India, which emphasized granting bail in cases with limited sentences and documentary evidence, especially when the accused has no prior history. He also cites Vishal Agarwal v. Union of India, Ashutosh Garg v. Union of India, and Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India. The petitioner further argues that witnesses are official, and the trial will be lengthy due to a bulky charge-sheet, making further custody unproductive. Respondent's arguments: The State opposes bail, alleging the petitioner made bogus supplies and that the tax evasion is substantial (₹9.54 Crores), warranting denial of bail.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(1)(i), Section 132(5), Section 483
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 18/06/2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed amended cause title which is taken on record.
The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS-2023) on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with case No.AC/EWI/C/JAIPUR/2025-26/3172 registered at State GST District Jaipur for the offence punishable under Section 132(1) (c) read with Section 132(1)(i) & 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.04.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed in the matter on 30.05.2025. He further submits
[2025:RJ-JP:23335] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7338/2025] that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that maximum punishment which can be awarded is five years. He relied upon the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Appeal No.2269/2025, where it was held as under: “The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances. By setting aside the impugned order dated 24th January, 2025 of the High court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, we grant bail to the appellant. The appellant shall be immediately produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall enlarge him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the conclusion of the trial.” Special Leave Petition No.13644/2024 & Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India in Special Leave Petition No.8740/2024 and [2025:RJ-JP:23335] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7338/2025] influencing the witnesses during the course of the trial. He further submits that looking at the bulky charge-sheet, the trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose, so, the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Additional Govt. Advocates have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there is allegation against the petitioner for making of bogus supply. He further submits that tax evasion in the present case amounts to 9.54 Crores, therefore, the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Jain (supra), Vishal Agarwal (supra) & Ashutosh Garg (supra) and considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.04.2025, and that the charge-sheet has been filed on 30.05.2025. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132, the punishment provided is imprisonment which may extend to five years with fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration of almost two and half months and completion of trial in any event, would take some time. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be in tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official
[2025:RJ-JP:23335] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7338/2025] witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. The trial of the case may take considerable time, thus, without commenting any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application.
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Kishor Kumar Moolani S/o Shri Meerchu Mal shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. That apart, the petitioner shall also follow the conditions as under: (i). He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (ii). He shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court. (iii). In case, the above conditions are not complied by the petitioner, thus the respondent prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application. (iv). The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (v). The petitioner will not influence any witness. (vi). The petitioner will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (MANEESH SHARMA (V. J.)),J DEEPA RANI-215s
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.