Sagar Jumnani vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the alleged offence under Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, with the maximum prescribed sentence being five years. The Court noted that the applicant had fully cooperated with the investigation and found no likelihood of evidence tampering or witness influence. Considering the applicant's willingness to abide by all court-imposed conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, regular appearance, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Court directed that upon executing a personal bond and furnishing one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/competent CGST authority, the applicant shall be released on bail, subject to specific conditions including not inducing or threatening witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the investigation, appearing as required, submitting identity documents, and not involving himself in similar future offences.

Facts

The applicant, Sagar Jumnani, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He apprehends arrest in connection with Case No. Arr.03/2025 registered by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, BIU, Nawa Raipur Division, for offences under Sections 132(1)(a) read with 132(5) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleges that the applicant's father, Gurmukh Jumnani, illegally manufactured gutkha under the brand name "SITAR," causing an alleged tax and cess evasion of ₹22.24 crore. A statement claims the applicant and his father operated nine factories between 2021 and 2025. The applicant is specifically alleged to operate "Komalfood Product" where SITAR gutkha was found, and areca nut cutting allegedly occurred in his father's factory.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the alleged offences under Section 132 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends he has been falsely implicated due to personal animosity. He argues that the exact quantum of tax evasion requires statutory assessment and that arrest at this stage is unwarranted and violates his constitutional rights. He claims to have cooperated with the investigation, including searches and summons under Section 70 of the CGGST Act, and poses no risk of evidence tampering. He is willing to abide by court conditions. State's Arguments: The State opposes anticipatory bail, reiterating the allegations of clandestine gutkha manufacturing, tax evasion exceeding ₹22.24 crore, and the applicant's personal involvement due to gutkha being found at his business premises. The State argues that the applicant and his father operated multiple factories and that the processing of areca nuts establishes the applicant's connection to the evasion. They contend the matter falls under Section 132 of the CGGST Act, involving evasion exceeding ₹5 crore, and there is a potential risk of evidence tampering or witness influence.