Rajesh Arora S/O Shri Deewan Chand vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the allegations against the petitioners are serious, the fact that they have been in custody for over two years and the maximum punishment is five years warrants consideration for bail. The Court noted that the complaint was filed in 2018, but the investigation concluded in July 2020, and the case is now at the pre-charge evidence stage, indicating that the trial may not conclude soon. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it just and expedient to order the release of the petitioners on bail. The Court directed that each petitioner be admitted to bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Additionally, the petitioners are prohibited from leaving the country without prior permission from the Court. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioners, Sandeep Goyal and Rajesh Arora, are seeking regular bail in FIR No. 15/2018 registered at the DGGI, GST, Jaipur for offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They have been in custody since August 3, 2018. The petitioners argue that they are entitled to bail as the maximum punishment is five years, the trial court is at the pre-charge evidence stage, and the investigation concluded in July 2020, indicating a delayed trial. The respondent, Union of India through the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, opposes the bail, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations. The investigation revealed the creation of 75 fake firms that issued GST invoices worth over Rs. 1163 crore, involving GST of over Rs. 102 crore, without any actual movement of goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering their period of custody and the stage of the trial? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 439 CrPC and principles of bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contend that they have been in custody for over two years, and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is five years. They further argue that the investigation has been completed (July 2020) and the case is listed for pre-charge evidence, implying a lengthy trial. They rely on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which emphasizes the purpose of bail and the release of accused on bail pending trial, even in cases of economic offences, provided stringent conditions are imposed. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent opposes the bail petitions, asserting that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. They point to the extensive fraud involving the creation of 75 fake firms and the issuance of GST invoices for a substantial taxable value without any physical movement of goods.