Ankit Jain S/O Shri Kailash Chandra Jain vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ankit Jain, proprietor of M/s Ankit K.C. Jain And Associates, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was arrested in connection with case No. F. No. AC/EWIII/A/JAIPUR/2024-25/646 registered at State GST District Jaipur for offences under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) read with Section 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims to be falsely implicated and not the proprietor of the firms. He has been in judicial custody since March 26, 2025, and a charge-sheet was filed on May 23, 2025. The amount of tax evasion alleged is ₹10.05 Crores.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. It considered the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Vineet Jain, Vishal Agarwal, and Ashutosh Garg. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since March 26, 2025, and the charge-sheet was filed on May 23, 2025. Even considering the alleged tax evasion, the maximum punishment under Section 132 of the GST Act is imprisonment up to five years with a fine. The petitioner had already undergone incarceration for approximately two and a half months, 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 the risk 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 like amount, and to comply with 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 BNSS-2023, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) read with Section 132(5) of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017, and the period of custody. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, is not the proprietor of the firms, and has been in custody since March 26, 2025. He contended that the maximum punishment is five years, and the trial will take considerable time. He relied on Supreme Court judgments in Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, Vishal Agarwal Vs. Union of India, Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India, and Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, emphasizing that bail should be granted in such cases unless extraordinary circumstances exist. He also submitted that witnesses are official and cannot be influenced, and further custody would serve no purpose. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner is accused of generating fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) and receiving commission for its utilization, with a tax evasion amounting to ₹10.05 Crores. Therefore, the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(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 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS-2023) on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with case No. F. No. AC/EWIII/A/JAIPUR/2024-25/646 registered at State GST District Jaipur for the offence punishable under Section 132(1) (b) & (c) read with Section 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he further submits that petitioner is not the proprietor of the firms. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.03.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed
[2025:RJ-JP:23270] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5674/2025] in the matter on 23.05.2025. 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:23270] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5674/2025] 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 the allegations against the petitioner is for generating fake ITC and while utilizing the same petitioner has received commission. He further submits that tax evasion in the present case amounts to 10.05 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 26.03.2025, and that the charge-sheet has been filed on 23.05.2025. 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
[2025:RJ-JP:23270] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5674/2025] 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, 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 petitioner Ankit Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Jain 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 Lakshya/Keshav/104
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.