Mohammed Yunus @ Mohammed Yonus Khan @ Mohammed Yonus @ Yunus Khan S/O Late Shri Najir Ahmed @ vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the contentions put forth by both parties. While acknowledging the gravity of the alleged offence involving a substantial amount of input tax credit (over Rs. 127 crore) as argued by the Union of India, the Court ultimately deemed it proper to allow the fourth bail application. The reasoning appears to be primarily based on the petitioner's prolonged period of custody (approximately one year and seven months) and the slow pace of the trial, with only one witness statement recorded out of twenty. The Court did not explicitly discuss the merits of the alleged offences under the CGST Act but prioritized the petitioner's right to liberty due to the extended pre-trial detention and the lack of substantial progress in the examination of witnesses. The ratio decidendi appears to be that prolonged custody coupled with a slow trial can outweigh the gravity of the alleged financial offence for the purpose of granting bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Yunus, filed a fourth bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. The FIR was registered by the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, for offences under various sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (l), and Section 135(5). The petitioner had been in custody for approximately one year and seven months. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the maximum sentence under the Act is five years and only one out of twenty witnesses had been examined. The Union of India opposed the bail application, highlighting that the case involved passing of input tax credit amounting to over Rs. 127 crore.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the period of custody and the stage of the trial, considering the gravity of the alleged offence under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that they have been in custody for about one year and seven months, and the maximum sentence under the Goods and Services Act is five years. Out of twenty listed witnesses, only one statement has been recorded, indicating a slow trial progression. The petitioner relied on the principle that prolonged incarceration without significant progress in trial warrants bail. Union of India: Opposed the bail application, emphasizing the significant amount involved in the alleged offence, specifically the passing of input tax credit to the tune of more than Rs. 127 crore, indicating the seriousness of the financial crime.