Nikunj Singhal S/O Ashok Kumar Singhal vs. Diggi, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur

Facts

The petitioner, Nikunj Singhal, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He was arrested in connection with Complaint No. DGGI/INV/GST/2371/2021-Gr.B, registered by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(c), (f), (h), and (1) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that a false case was registered against him, he had been incarcerated for a significant period, and that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail. The respondent, DGGI, Jaipur Zonal Unit (Union of India), through the Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, Nikunj Singhal. The primary reasoning for this decision was the fact that a similarly situated co-accused, Lakshya Agarwal, had already been granted bail by the same Court in S.B. CRLMB No. 20392/2021 vide order dated 08.03.2022. The Court found that the allegations against the present petitioner were identical in nature to those against Lakshya Agarwal, and there was nothing on record that distinguished the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused. Consequently, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The operative direction was that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge, for his appearance on all hearing dates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Nikunj Singhal, is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under Sections 132(1)(c), (f), (h), and (1) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that a false case had been foisted upon him and that he had been in custody for a considerable duration. He further submitted that a co-accused, Lakshya Agarwal, who was similarly situated, had already been granted bail by the Court. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail. Respondent's Arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.