C. B. Chauhan S/O Shri Devi Lal Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, C.B. Chauhan, filed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (f), (h), (i), and (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case originated from file No. DGGI/INV/GST/2916/2021-Gr-K-O/o DD-DGGI/RU-Udaipur. The petitioner claimed to be a salaried employee of M/s Miraj Products Private Limited, with no amount to be recovered from him. He stated that his role was not defined in previous complaints against co-accused and that he had joined the investigation, with his statement recorded on 18.11.2021, which he later retracted on 14.01.2022. The respondent indicated that investigations were ongoing but no final conclusion had been reached. The petitioner also pointed to a co-accused, Vinaykant Ameta, being granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The Court acknowledged the admitted position that a raid was conducted at M/s Miraj Products Private Limited, and the prosecution alleged a tax evasion of Rs. 869 Crores. The Court referred to pronouncements by the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasizing that economic offenders should not be treated as general offenders due to their role in running a parallel economy and posing a serious threat to the national economy. Considering the submissions of both parties, the seriousness of the alleged offences, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it not to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The operative direction was the dismissal of the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged economic offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering his role and the seriousness of the alleged tax evasion. The petitioner argued that he was wrongly implicated, was a salaried employee with nothing to recover, and his role was not defined in prior complaints. He highlighted his cooperation with the investigation, subsequent retraction of his statement, and the fact that a co-accused was granted bail. He relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence DGGI. The respondent contended that the petitioner was an economic offender and that anticipatory bail is not maintainable in such cases, citing Supreme Court pronouncements. They argued that economic offenders should be dealt with separately from ordinary offenders and that such offences pose a serious threat to the national economy. They relied on judgments in P. Chidambaram Vs. Director Of Enforcement, Rajkumar Daitapati Vs. Director Enforcement, and Prakash Chandra Purohit Vs. Union Of India.