Vishnukant Garg @ Vishnu Garg @ Vishwas S/O Late Sh. Atal Bihari vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Vishnukant Garg, in connection with Complaint No. DGGI/INT/104/2021-GR.F-0/0 ADG-DGGI-ZU-Jaipur for offences under Section 132(1)(B), (C), (F) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The reasoning for granting bail was based on the nature of the alleged offence, the period already undergone by the applicant in custody, and the completion of the investigation. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each. Conditions for bail include full cooperation in the trial and not leaving the country without court permission, failing which bail could be cancelled. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Vishnukant Garg, sought regular bail in connection with a complaint filed by the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged offences under Section 132(1)(B), (C), and (F) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint, numbered DGGI/INT/104/2021-GR.F-0/0 ADG-DGGI-ZU-Jaipur, pertains to the petitioner's alleged involvement in creating fake papers for GST misappropriation. The petitioner has been in custody since January 23, 2021. The alleged offences are punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five years and are triable by a Magistrate. The petitioner claims to have no criminal antecedents and argues that continued detention serves no purpose after the completion of the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the nature of the alleged economic offences and the period of custody undergone? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the alleged offences are punishable with a maximum of five years imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate. He asserted that he has no criminal antecedents and that his continued detention is unnecessary after the investigation has been completed. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Union of India through DGGI and State of Rajasthan) argued that the petitioner was involved in economic offences, which are considered heinous. They cited instances where this Court refused bail and the Supreme Court did not interfere with such orders.