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

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The reasoning was based on the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the petitioner. The Court noted that the case involved fraud amounting to Rs. 22 Crores, with the petitioner and co-accused allegedly creating fictitious firms and claiming input tax credit beyond Rs. 22 Crores. The Court also took into account that previous bail petitions filed by co-accused were dismissed on merits, and the petitioner's prior bail application was dismissed due to the dismissal of co-accused's petitions. While acknowledging that other co-accused were granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the Court found no grounds for granting bail to the petitioner given the gravity of the charges. The ratio decidendi is that serious economic offences involving substantial financial fraud may warrant denial of bail, even if some co-accused have been released on bail under specific circumstances or for procedural reasons.

Facts

The petitioner, Aditya Gupta, filed a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. The application pertains to a case initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, 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 has been in custody since June 20, 2018. The trial court is at the pre-charge evidence stage. The petitioner claims to be falsely implicated and that statements of witnesses recorded so far do not establish a case against him. He also notes that other co-accused are on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the allegations of fraud involving Rs. 22 Crores, the creation of fictitious firms, and fraudulent claims of input tax credit exceeding Rs. 22 Crores? (Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). The petitioner argued that he is falsely involved, the evidence recorded so far does not support the case against him, and other co-accused are on bail. The respondent Union of India argued that the case involves serious allegations of fraud to the tune of Rs. 22 Crores, with the petitioner and co-accused creating fictitious firms and claiming undue input tax credit. The respondent also highlighted that bail petitions of co-accused Sandeep Kumar Agarwal and Ram Kumar were dismissed on merits, and the petitioner's previous bail petition was dismissed in view of the dismissal of co-accused's petitions. Other co-accused were granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.