Rohit Singla vs. Sio (Senior Intelligence Officer)

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Rohit Singla. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that a complaint had already been filed and further investigation was ongoing. It also took into account that the applicant had been in custody since November 22, 2024, and the conclusion of the trial might take time. The Court found the applicant entitled to be released on bail. The reasoning appears to be primarily based on the applicant's period of incarceration and the potential delay in trial conclusion, coupled with the applicant's assurances of cooperation and undertaking not to misuse liberty. The Court did not explicitly address the arguments regarding the ingredients of the offenses or the compliance with Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act, nor did it detail the reasoning for overturning the lower court's order beyond stating the applicant was entitled to bail. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to several conditions aimed at ensuring his presence and cooperation during the trial.

Facts

The applicant, Rohit Singla, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1191/GST/2024-25, registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Raipur Zonal Unit. The prosecution alleges that the applicant passed on unauthorized Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 11,12,22,316/- to various firms through non-existent firms, without actual supply of goods, solely based on invoices. The applicant has been in jail since November 22, 2024. This is his first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations made against the applicant meet the basic ingredients of the offenses punishable under Sections 16, 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, warranting denial of bail? (Question of law) 2. Whether the proceedings were initiated without complying with the statutory mandate of the CGST Act, 2017, specifically Sections 73/74? (Question of law) 3. Whether the lower court's order denying bail was erroneous and mechanical, failing to provide reasons and address the applicant's contentions? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. The allegations do not meet the ingredients of the offenses. Proceedings were initiated without complying with Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act. The lower court passed a non-speaking, mechanical order denying bail without addressing contentions or providing reasons. There is no evidence to support the allegations of availing ineligible ITC. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, deep roots in society, is not a flight risk, and will cooperate with the investigation. He has been in jail since November 22, 2024, and trial conclusion will take time. Non-applicant's arguments: The department received confidential information about the applicant passing on unauthorized ITC through fake firms without actual supply of goods, solely based on invoices. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.