Aditya Gupta S/O Shri Arjun Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the allegations against the petitioner were serious, the fact that he had been in custody for over two years and the maximum punishment was five years were significant factors. The Court also noted that the case was at the pre-charge evidence stage and the trial might not conclude at an early date. Considering the custody period and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it just and expedient to order the release of the petitioner on bail. The Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to be admitted to bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner was also directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Aditya Gupta, filed a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Rajasthan High Court. The application sought regular bail in a case filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (h), (j), and (k) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in custody since June 20, 2018. The case was listed for pre-charge evidence before the trial court, with statements of 15 out of 45 prosecution witnesses recorded. The petitioner argued that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon and that the maximum punishment was five years, making him eligible for bail. The respondent opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, including fraud to the tune of Rs. 22 Crores through fictitious firms and claiming input tax credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering his period of custody and the stage of the trial, despite the serious allegations of economic fraud under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that he had been in custody for over two years, the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was five years, and the trial was at the pre-charge evidence stage with a significant number of witnesses yet to be examined, indicating a delay in conclusion. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which emphasized that the grant of bail is a discretionary power regulated by facts and circumstances, and bail should not be denied merely due to community sentiments against the accused, especially when investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed. The respondent argued that the allegations against the petitioner were serious, involving fraud of Rs. 22 Crores by creating fictitious firms and claiming input tax credit, which could jeopardize the economy.