Mahendra Saini S/O Madanlal Saini vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The Court considered the submissions made by both parties. While acknowledging the petitioner's arguments regarding his employee status and the bail granted to a co-accused, the Court also took into account the respondent's submission that the petitioner was a proprietor/partner and that his firm had allegedly claimed a significant amount of input tax credit (Rs. 11.03 crores) without genuine transportation of goods. The total input tax credit claimed by the petitioner and co-accused was stated to be Rs. 146 crores. The Court noted the seriousness of the alleged offences. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that no case was made out for granting bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The operative direction was the dismissal of the bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahendra Saini, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with a complaint registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit (DGGI, JZU). The alleged offences relate to the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 132(1)(b), (c) & (f), punishable under Section 132(1)(i) read with Section 132(5). The petitioner was arrested in connection with Complaint No. F.no.DGGI/INT/104/2021-Gr.F-0/0ADG-DGGI-ZU-Jaipur. The petitioner claims to be an employee of a co-accused, Vishnu Garg, and highlights that another co-accused, Bhagwan Sahay Gupta (a Chartered Accountant), has been granted bail. The petitioner also notes that the offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of wrongful input tax credit claims and the ongoing investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he was merely an employee of a co-accused, Vishnu Garg. He further submits that another co-accused, Bhagwan Sahay Gupta, a Chartered Accountant, has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court. Additionally, the petitioner argues that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence provided under the Act is five years, suggesting a less severe nature of the alleged crime. Respondent's Arguments: The State, through the DGGI, argues that at the relevant time, the petitioner was a proprietor/partner in various firms. The department's complaint alleges that the petitioner's firm wrongly claimed input tax credit amounting to Rs. 11.03 crores without any transportation of goods. The total input tax credit claimed in this case by the petitioner and other co-accused persons aggregates to Rs. 146 crores. The investigation is stated to be ongoing.