Umashankar Agarwal S/O Shri Babulal Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the second bail application. The reasoning was based on several factors: the maximum sentence provided under the Act being five years, the petitioner having undergone a significant period of custody (one year and two months), the case being at the pre-charge evidence stage with slow progress in witness examination, and the fact that similar bail applications in GST-related offenses had been granted by coordinate benches of the High Court. The Court found these factors sufficient to grant bail. The operative direction was to release the accused-petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, with the stipulation to appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.

Facts

The petitioner, Umashankar Agarwal, filed a second bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. The application pertains to an offense registered under Sections 132(1)(B)(C) read with Section 132(1)(I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The case was initiated by the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur. The petitioner had been in custody for one year and two months. The proceedings were at the pre-charge evidence stage, with only two out of seventeen witnesses examined, and investigations concerning other accused were incomplete.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the maximum sentence prescribed under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the period of custody undergone? Petitioner's Contentions: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the maximum sentence for the offense is five years, and the petitioner has already been in custody for one year and two months. It was further submitted that the case is still in the pre-charge evidence stage, with a significant number of witnesses yet to be examined, and the investigation into other co-accused is ongoing. Reliance was placed on previous judgments of the High Court where bail was granted in similar GST-related offenses, specifically citing Dhanraj Singhal Versus State of Rajasthan, Sandeep Goyal Versus Union of India, and Mohit Vijay Versus Union of India. Respondent's Contentions: The counsel for the Union of India opposed the bail application, contending that the offense has a serious impact on the economy of the country.