Laxman Chaudhary S/O Shri Saadhuram Chaudhary vs. Union Of INDIA (Dggi)

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the period of custody and the likelihood of the proceedings taking time to conclude. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning for granting bail was primarily based on the custody period and the procedural aspects of the offence (triable by Magistrate and compoundable), as argued by the petitioner, and the respondent's request for more time to argue, which implicitly suggests that a swift resolution on the merits was not immediately apparent. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance until the completion of the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Laxman Chaudhary, is seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with Case No. DGGI/INT/COMP/GEN/20/2021-Gr-A-O-O, registered by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur. The alleged offence is punishable under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since August 26, 2021. The petitioner's counsel argued that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and compoundable under Section 138 of the Act, and that the petitioner has no prior criminal record. The respondent (Union of India through DGGI) opposed the bail application, stating that the matter involves a huge amount and requested more time to argue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with an alleged offence under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering his period of custody, the nature of the offence, and the absence of criminal antecedents? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and is compoundable under Section 138 of the CGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. These factors, coupled with the period of custody, support the grant of bail. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent vehemently opposed the bail application, asserting that the case involves a substantial amount of money. The respondent requested additional time to present their arguments.