Ankur Agrawal S/O Late Shri Naresh Chandra vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ankur Agrawal, filed a bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. He was arrested on April 4, 2025, in connection with a case involving alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (e), (f), and (l) read with Section 132(1)(i) and 132(iv)(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A charge-sheet was filed against him on May 27, 2025. The Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, is the investigating authority. The dispute involves alleged tax evasion of Rs. 8.75 crore, stemming from the petitioner's alleged sale of tyres and tyre tubes without issuing proper invoices or challans, and using invoices meant for cycles for motorcycle tyres and tubes, sold at prices lower than their value.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. It acknowledged the legal propositions in the judgments cited by the respondents but found them distinguishable on facts. The Court considered the Supreme Court's precedents in Vineet Jain, Vishal Agarwal, Ashutosh Garg, and Ratnambar Kaushik. It noted that the petitioner had been in custody since April 4, 2025, and a charge-sheet was filed on May 27, 2025. The Court observed that the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses under Section 132 of the CGST Act is five years imprisonment and fine. The petitioner had already undergone incarceration for approximately two and a half months, and the trial was expected to take time. The Court also reasoned that the evidence would primarily be documentary and electronic, with ocular evidence from official witnesses, minimizing the risk of tampering. Additionally, the Court took into account that the petitioner is suffering from age-related issues. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, and adhering to conditions including not leaving the country without permission, depositing his passport, and cooperating with the trial.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the stage of the proceedings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, is in custody since April 4, 2025, and a charge-sheet has been filed. He contended that the maximum punishment is five years, and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, which granted bail in similar circumstances involving Section 132 offenses. He also argued that witnesses are official and cannot be influenced, and further custody would serve no purpose given the likely delay in trial. He cited Vishal Agarwal Vs. Union of India, Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India, and Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India. Respondents' arguments: The respondents opposed bail, highlighting the serious allegations of selling goods without invoices and using incorrect invoices, leading to a tax evasion of Rs. 8.75 crore. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI, Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, Ashish Goyal Vs. Union of India, and a co-ordinate bench judgment in Dheeraj Singhal Vs. Union of India, to argue against granting bail in such cases.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(a), Section 132(1)(e), Section 132(1)(f), Section 132(1)(l), Section 132(1)(i), Section 132(iv)(5), Section 483
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 16/06/2025
The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with case No. F. No. DGGI/INV/GST/2764/2023-Gr.C for the offence(s) under Sections 132(1)(a), (e), (f) and (l) read with Section 132(1)(i), 132(iv)(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [2025:RJ-JP:23266] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6128/2025]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2025 and charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner on 27.05.2025. 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 in the matter of Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India in Criminal 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:23266] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6128/2025] tyres and tyre tubes without issuing invoices/challans. He further submits that the petitioner is selling motorcycle tyres and tubes using invoices meant for cycles. He further submits that the petitioner sold tyres and tubes and prices lower than their values. Tax evasion in the present case amounts to Rs.8.75 crore, therefore, the petitioner shall not be released on bail. He relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.13322/2024, Ashish Goyal Vs. Union of India and judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court Misc. Bail Application No.3486/2024. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record.
[2025:RJ-JP:23266] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6128/2025]
Further, with regard to the judgments relied upon by the case and the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Jain (supra), Vishal Agarwal (Supra), Ashutosh Garg (Supra) & Ratnambar Kaushik (Supra) and considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.04.2025, and that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner on 27.05.2025. 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 extent to five years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration of almost two and half months and completion of trial, any event, would take some time. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. The trial of the case may take considerable time.
Taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Jain (Supra), the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case that the present petitioner is
[2025:RJ-JP:23266] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6128/2025] in custody since 04.04.2025. The petitioner is suffering from age related issues. Charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner. Without expressing anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Ankur Agrawal S/o Late Shri Naresh Chandra, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- 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 deposit the passport before the concerned Authority. (iii). 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. (iv). In case, the above conditions are not complied by the petitioner, thus the respondent prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application. (MANEESH SHARMA(V. J.)),J Keshav/Lakshya/119
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.