Aman Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that a complaint had already been filed against the applicant. It also noted that the applicant had been in custody since June 10, 2025, and the conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time. The Court found that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. The reasoning implicitly accepts the applicant's contention that the procedural safeguards and the nature of the offences (fiscal and compoundable) warranted bail, especially given the stage of proceedings (complaint filed) and the duration of custody. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one solvent surety, with the order to remain in force till the disposal of the case. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Aman Kumar Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Agastya Enterprises and M/s Agrawal Enterprises, was arrested in connection with Crime No. Arr. 01/2025. The prosecution alleges that the applicant claimed and availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹26.09 crore for M/s Agastya Enterprises and ₹14.08 crore for M/s Agrawal Enterprises without the actual receipt of goods or services, by showing purchases from non-existent businesses. Offences under Sections 69 and 132(1)(B)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, were registered based on a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, New Raipur Division. The applicant has been in jail since June 10, 2025. The applicant contends that no assessment or quantification of tax liability has been determined, and no loss has been caused to the government exchequer. The prosecution has filed a complaint, and no further recovery is pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the alleged offences under Sections 69 and 132(1)(B)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that no requisites to establish offences under Sections 69 and 132 are made out as neither assessment nor quantification of tax liability has been determined, and no loss of ₹40.14 crore has been caused to the government exchequer. They contended that the maximum punishment under the Act is up to five years, yet mandatory safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil, and Vineet Jain were not followed. The applicant also argued that the prosecution failed to show any retained benefit or recovery of unexplained cash, and that all offences under the Act are compoundable under Section 138, indicating a fiscal rather than penal object. Reliance was placed on High Court judgments from Bombay, Calcutta, and Andhra Pradesh, holding that arrest under the Act cannot be justified without proper assessment, notice, and opportunity of hearing. The applicant stated that the investigation is complete, the complaint has been filed, no further recovery is pending, and they have cooperated throughout. Non-applicant's Arguments: The non-applicant (GST) opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the complaint has been filed against the applicant.