Raees Khan S/O Sh. Abdul Shakoor vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The primary reasoning was based on the totality of facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate. The Court noted that the trial had not yet commenced, the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take time to conclude. The Court also considered the period of custody. While allowing bail, the Court explicitly stated that no comments were being made on the merits or demerits of the case. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each. The Court clarified that the observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not affect the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Raees Khan, is seeking bail in connection with FIR No.DGGI/INT/INTL/1289/2023-Gr-L-O/O DD-DGGI-RU-Udaipur. The alleged offences are under Section 132(1)(C)(f) & (K), 132(1)(i) & (IV) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since May 2, 2024. The charge-sheet has been filed, but charges have not yet been framed. The petitioner claims to have no criminal antecedents. The respondent, Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Central Goods and Services Tax Directorate, opposes the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the nature of the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the stage of the proceedings? The petitioner argued that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate and the maximum punishment is five years. He contended that charges have not been framed despite the filing of the charge-sheet, and he has no criminal antecedents. Further, his continued custody would serve no fruitful purpose. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Rajiv Jindal Vs. the State of U.P. regarding bail in cases triable by a magistrate in the absence of antecedents. The respondent (DGGI) argued that the petitioner obtained invoices from a non-existent firm and wrongly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹11 Crores, vehemently opposing the bail application.