Nitin Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Nagarmal Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Nitin Kumar Sharma, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The decision was based on several factors: the petitioner's custody period exceeding six months, the maximum punishment for the alleged offences being five years, and the fact that co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail. The Court acknowledged the respondent's contention regarding the petitioner's control over the firm and the alleged wrongful claim of input tax credit, but stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court found it just and proper to grant bail considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the likelihood of the proceedings taking time to conclude. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Facts

The petitioner, Nitin Kumar Sharma, is seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. DGGI/INV/GST/Gr/196/2019-20, registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit. The FIR pertains to alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (j), (k), and (1) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since March 2, 2021, exceeding six months. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was being used by co-accused who committed economic offenses and that co-accused Manoj Vijay and Ravindra Vijay have already been granted bail. The respondent opposed the bail, stating the petitioner controlled the firm that wrongly claimed input tax credit worth crores without actual goods transportation, and that investigation is ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner has been in custody for over six months. - Co-accused Manoj Vijay and Ravindra Vijay have already been granted bail by this Court in similar applications. - The petitioner was allegedly being used by the co-accused who committed the economic offense. Respondent's Arguments: - The petitioner controlled the firm in question. - The firm wrongly claimed input tax credit worth crores of rupees without actual transportation of goods. - The investigation into the matter is still ongoing.