Nishant Sahu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant. The primary reasoning for granting bail was the unexplained delay of approximately 11 years between the FIR lodging (27.06.2014) and the charge-sheet filing (2025). The Court also considered that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been submitted, and the applicant has been in jail since 29.05.2025. The Court noted the applicant's submission that the dispute is fiscal and criminalization under IPC is unwarranted without proper sanction under the Chhattisgarh VAT Act, 2005, and the delay in prosecution. While the Court did not explicitly rule on the maintainability of the prosecution under IPC without sanction or the absence of ingredients for Sections 420 and 467 IPC, the significant delay and the applicant's incarceration were the decisive factors for granting bail. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions regarding his presence in court and non-adjournment.

Facts

The applicant, Nishant Sahu, is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 361/2014 registered under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, as proprietor of M/s Sai Nath Enterprises, had a turnover of Rs. 356.25 lakhs during the assessment year 2013-14 but declared sales of only Rs. 47.37 lakhs, evading tax amounting to Rs. 17.81 lakhs under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The complaint was filed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bilaspur, on 27.06.2014. The applicant contends that the investigation ignored provisions of the VAT Act, no reassessment was done, and there's an unexplained delay of 11 years in filing the charge-sheet. He also argues that the ingredients of IPC Sections 420 and 467 are missing, the dispute is fiscal, and prosecution under IPC is unwarranted without prior sanction under the VAT Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code is maintainable for alleged tax evasion under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, without prior sanction from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, as required by the latter Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the Chhattisgarh VAT Act, 2005, is a complete code for tax matters and requires prior sanction for prosecution. Invoking IPC provisions without this sanction is illegal and an abuse of process. The alleged offenses are fiscal in nature and should be dealt with under the VAT Act, which classifies offenses as bailable. The petitioner also contends that the essential ingredients of Sections 420 and 467 IPC are not met, as there's no evidence of dishonest intention or forgery. The delay in filing the charge-sheet also violates the right to a speedy trial. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel opposes the bail application, stating that the charge-sheet has not yet been submitted before the competent court.