Rajkishore Agarwal S/O Shri Omprakash Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the contentions put forth by both the petitioner and the Union of India. The Court deemed it proper to allow the bail application. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's arguments regarding the amount paid, the period of custody, and the fact that a charge-sheet had been filed, implying that the investigation had progressed significantly. The Court did not explicitly discuss the specific provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act in relation to bail but rather focused on the overall circumstances presented. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, surrendering his passport, and adhering to other standard bail conditions, including appearing before the court as and when required.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajkishore Agarwal, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The case was registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur, for offenses under Sections 132(1)(B)(C) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The total amount involved was Rs. 6.47 Crores. The petitioner claimed to have paid Rs. 90 lakh and submitted a transit pass of Rs. 2 Crore to the department. A charge-sheet had been filed, and the petitioner had been in custody since February 6, 2020, for approximately ten months. The petitioner argued that an offense involving Rs. 5 crore is bailable and the maximum sentence is five years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the amount involved, the period of custody, and the nature of the alleged offenses under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the total amount involved was Rs. 6.47 Crores, of which Rs. 90 lakh had been paid, and a transit pass of Rs. 2 Crore was submitted. He argued that an offense involving Rs. 5 crore is a bailable offense and that he had been in custody for ten months. The maximum sentence prescribed under the Act is five years, and a charge-sheet has already been filed. Respondent's arguments: The Union of India opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was ongoing regarding the recipients of the input tax credit. They further contended that granting bail to such individuals would affect the country's economy.