Sher Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Ishwar Singh Shekhawat vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner's period of custody, the likelihood of the proceedings taking a long time to conclude, and the fact that the offense is compoundable by the Commissioner. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to admit the petitioner to regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court directed the office to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sher Singh Shekhawat, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He was arrested in connection with Case No. DGGI/jzu/inv/Gr-H/GST/16/2019-20 for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (c), (h), (2) read with Section (5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims to have been falsely implicated and states that the challan has been presented, with the trial likely to take a long time. He also asserts that the case is triable by a Magistrate and compoundable by the Commissioner under Section 138. The allegation against him is the wrongful availment of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 5,12,18,594/-. The petitioner has been in custody since September 22, 2021. The respondent, Union of India through the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, opposed the bail application, highlighting the huge amount involved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the alleged offence under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated and that the challan has been presented, implying a lengthy trial. He contended that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and compoundable by the Commissioner under Section 138 of the Act. Furthermore, he submitted that offenses involving amounts up to Rs. 5 crores are bailable. The petitioner also highlighted his period of custody since September 22, 2021. The respondent, represented by the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail application, primarily emphasizing the substantial amount involved in the alleged offense.