Sandeep Goyal S/O Sh. Satpal Goyal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The primary reasoning for dismissal was the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, which involved a significant fraud amounting to Rupees Seventy-Four Crores through the creation of 555 fake firms. The Court noted that the investigation was still ongoing and that new fake firms and substantial fraud amounts were being discovered. While acknowledging that a co-accused, Himani Munjal, had been granted bail by the Apex Court, the High Court distinguished the petitioner's case. It reasoned that the Apex Court likely granted bail to the co-accused on grounds specific to her, such as her gender, the presence of a young child, and her custody period. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner's case was on a different footing and did not warrant the grant of bail. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Goyal, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 15/2018 registered at the DGGI, GST, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The FIR pertains to offenses under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(d)(f)(i) and (i) read with Sub-section 5 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody for approximately one and a half years. Earlier, his bail petition was dismissed, referencing the dismissal of a co-accused's bail. However, the co-accused, Himani Munjal, has since been granted bail by the Apex Court. The respondent, Union of India, through the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, opposes the bail, citing a significant fraud involving the creation of 555 fake firms and a total fraud amount of Rupees Seventy-Four Crores.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering his custody period and the maximum sentence prescribed. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that he is entitled to bail as he has been in custody for about one and a half years, and the maximum sentence for the alleged offenses is five years. He also points out that a co-accused, Himani Munjal, has been granted bail by the Apex Court, implying parity. Respondent's Argument: The Union of India opposes the bail, highlighting the serious nature of the fraud involving the creation of 555 fake firms and a total fraud amount of Rupees Seventy-Four Crores. They further state that the investigation is ongoing, with new fake firms and significant fraud amounts (Rupees Six and a half Crores) being discovered recently. The respondent distinguishes the petitioner's case from the co-accused's bail, suggesting the Apex Court granted bail to Himani Munjal on grounds specific to her, such as being a lady with a young child to look after and her custody period.