Shubham Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the applicant. While acknowledging that a charge-sheet had been filed and the trial was likely to take time, the Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The decision was primarily based on the fact that the applicant had no criminal antecedent, had been in jail since April 7, 2025, and the conclusion of the trial was expected to be lengthy. The Court emphasized that without commenting on the merits, it was inclined to grant bail. Specific conditions were imposed on the applicant, including an undertaking not to seek adjournments, to remain present on each date fixed for trial, and to cooperate with the proceedings. The Court also outlined consequences for misuse of bail liberty, referencing provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The issue of whether the arrest procedures were followed as per Supreme Court directions was not explicitly decided but was implicitly considered in the overall context of granting bail.

Facts

The applicant, Shubham Kumar, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was arrested in connection with Crime No.GST/314/2025 registered at Police Station – DGGI, Zonal Unit, District-Raipur (C.G.) for offences under the CGST Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the applicant utilized fake bills to avail fraudulent Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.7,44,84,094/-, causing a loss to the government exchequer. The applicant has been in jail since April 7, 2025, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated and that the prosecution had not determined the quantum of tax involved, which is a prerequisite for establishing the offence and determining punishment. He also contended that the arrest procedures as laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil were not followed. The respondent opposed the bail application, stating that a charge-sheet had been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit utilization under the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the prosecution has established the necessary requisites under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, prima facie against the applicant, particularly concerning the determination of the quantum of tax involved? 3. Whether the arrest of the applicant was in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI? Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that no requisites to establish an offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, were met, as the quantum of tax had not been determined. Contended that the arrest was unwarranted and against constitutional rights, and that the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil were not followed. Submitted that the trial would likely take a long time, and the applicant had no criminal antecedent. Respondent: Opposed the bail application, stating that a charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to bail.