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

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for interim bail. The decision was based on the medical report of the petitioner's wife, which was placed on record. The Court found that, in view of this medical report, there were no grounds to grant interim bail to the petitioner. The reasoning implies that the medical condition, as presented in the report, did not necessitate the petitioner's immediate release on interim bail. The operative direction was the dismissal of the application. No specific issues were expressly left undecided; the Court made a definitive finding on the sole issue presented.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Arora, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking interim bail. The bail was sought in FIR No. 15/2018, registered at the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit. The FIR pertains to alleged offences under Sections 131(1)(B)(C)(D)(F)(I) and (1) read with Sections 132(1)(I)(IV) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Sub-Section 5 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's wife was scheduled for an operation and requested interim bail for two months to facilitate this. The respondent, Union of India through the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, opposed the bail, stating that a doctor's opinion indicated oral medicines could be prescribed, with surgery only required if they failed. The patient was reportedly refusing medication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the medical condition of his wife and the alleged offences under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (specifically Sections 131 and 132)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that interim bail should be granted for two months to enable him to be present for his wife's upcoming operation. This argument focuses on humanitarian grounds and the petitioner's familial obligations. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that interim bail is not warranted. They presented a doctor's opinion suggesting that the wife's condition could be managed with oral medication, and surgery was a secondary option. The respondent also highlighted the wife's alleged refusal to take prescribed medicines, implying that the necessity for the petitioner's presence for surgery might not be immediate or absolute. The respondent's argument centers on the medical report and the perceived lack of immediate necessity for the petitioner's presence for a surgical intervention.