Amit Singhal S/O Late Shri Purushottam Singhal vs. State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan High Court, 25 April 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:17598] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4413/2025 Amit Singhal S/o Late Shri Purushottam Singhal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 3, Keshav Nagar, Keshopura Bypass Chungi Naka, Jaipur, Rajasthan (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Assistant Commissioner, Division-I, Circle-C, Enforcement Wing Iii, State Tax Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Wilson Joy Mr. Mihir Jhanwar Mr. Rahul Lakhwani Mr. Sahajveer Baweja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Chaudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order 25/04/2025 The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner who has been arrested

in connection

with complaint

No. DC/EWIII/C/JAIPUR/2024-25/1511 registered before the learned Economic Offences Court, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur Second for offences under Section 132(1)(b),(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) & 132(5) of Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the alleged offences are triable by magistrate, for which, maximum punishment is five years. It is contended that as per the

[2025:RJ-JP:17598] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4413/2025] case set up against the petitioner, during investigation conducted by the Department, the petitioner availed fake/bogus ITC for the firms opened by him and his employees on the basis of invoices without supplying the goods. Learned counsel submits that till date, tax liability has not been determined by the Department. Complaint has already been filed against the petitioner. He is in custody since 26.11.2024 whereas trial will take long time in its conclusion. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon recent order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Jindal v. State of UP (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.13548-13550/2024. He submits that in the said order, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in absence of any antecedents, there is no reason to deny bail to an accused in a case triable by magistrate. There are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Chaudhary, GA-cum-AAG has vehemently opposed bail application. He submits that evasion of tax not only affects the economy of State but also causes a serious threat to the nation. The petitioner wrongly claimed input tax credit (ITC) of crores of rupees. It is argued that looking to the seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused petitioner, bail should not be granted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, as also the fact that the alleged offences are triable by magistrate; complaint has been filed against the petitioner in the court concerned; till date, tax liability has not been determined; he is in custody since 26.11.2024 and there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future, petitioner does not have

[2025:RJ-JP:17598] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4413/2025] criminal antecedents of similar nature and low rate of conviction in such offences but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Amit Singhal S/o Late Shri Purushottam Singhal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or temper with the evidence in any manner. The prosecution would be free to seek cancellation of bail, if petitioner is found violating this condition/direction. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /39