Jitendra Kumar Gupta @ Jitendra Gupta S/O Prahlad Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Ratnambar Kaushik, which held that in bail applications, if the investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed, and the alleged evasion, while significant, carries a punishment of imprisonment up to 5 years, the petitioner having undergone incarceration for over four months, and the trial likely to take time, bail should be granted. The Court also noted the Supreme Court's recent directions to generally avoid sending individuals to jail for offences punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment. The Court reasoned that no purpose would be served by further detention after investigation completion, as there is no provision for pre-trial punishment. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount, with conditions to fully cooperate in the trial and not leave the country without court permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Gupta, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The application pertains to Case No. F.NO. IV (06) 50/AE/JPR/2023, registered for offences under Sections 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Rajasthan Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegation against the petitioner is that he created forged documents to evade Goods and Services Tax, resulting in a theft of crores of rupees payable as tax. The investigation is complete, and the petitioner is in custody.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the nature of the alleged offences under the GST Acts and the completion of the investigation? The petitioner's counsel argued that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate, the investigation is complete, and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, which emphasized granting bail when investigation is complete, charge sheet is filed, and the punishment is limited, especially when the accused has already undergone significant incarceration. The respondent (Union of India) opposed the bail application, citing identical matters before the Supreme Court in Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India and Lalit Goyal Vs. Union of India, where accused were in jail for a long period. They did not present further arguments.