Gaurav Dhaka S/O Jagdish Singh Dhaka vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Gaurav Dhaka, Director of Staysale Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., filed a bail application challenging an order dated July 17, 2025, passed by the subordinate court. The case involves alleged tax evasion amounting to ₹882.89 crore under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since May 15, 2025. The petitioner contends that the tax evasion calculation is based on assumptions, as the number of machines stated to be operational from April 1, 2023, was not accurate. The petitioner also argues that some machines were purchased later, and the calculation of electricity bills does not align with the stated machine operation hours. The petitioner's company has since deposited the tax amount, and the factory has been returned. The petitioner has also cited judicial precedents supporting bail in similar circumstances.
Held
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Gaurav Dhaka. The Court considered that the petitioner had been in custody for over eight months. It noted that the case is triable by a Magistrate and carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. The Court also took into account the petitioner's submission of judicial precedents, particularly Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India, which emphasizes that in bail applications, the petitioner's period of incarceration, the nature of evidence (primarily documentary and electronic), and the time likely to be taken for trial are crucial factors. The Court found it appropriate to grant bail without making any final observations on the merits of the case. The petitioner is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000/- and two sureties of ₹1,00,000/- each, with the condition to appear before the trial court on each date of hearing and not to leave India without the court's permission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in light of the alleged tax evasion of ₹882.89 crore and the ongoing investigation, considering the petitioner has been in custody since May 15, 2025, and the maximum punishment under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is five years imprisonment? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the tax evasion calculation is flawed, based on incorrect machine counts and operational data. The petitioner highlights that the company has since deposited the tax amount and the factory has been returned. They also point out that the case is a first-class magistrate case with a maximum sentence of five years, and the trial is likely to take time. They rely on precedents like Rishabh Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Vineet Jain v. Union of India, and Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India. Respondent's arguments: The State argues that the petitioner is a director of a company involved in manufacturing and supplying pan masala, and tax evasion has occurred due to the non-disclosure of supplies. They contend that the offense is serious, and the petitioner's bail application should be dismissed. They also mention that another director is still absconding.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order Reserved on :: 03/02/2026 Pronounced on :: 06/02/2026 izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad& 17-07-2025 ds fo:) ;g tekur vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 483 ch-,u-,l-,l- mls vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 132¼1½ jktLFkku oLrq ,oa lsokdj vf/kfu;e 2017 esa ntZ izdj.k la[;k&AC-II/A/EW-ll/2025-26/32 GST JAIPUR esa fu;fer tekur iznku fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA cgl lquh xbZ A ;ksX; vf/koDrk izkFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks ekeys esa >waBk Qalk;k x;k gS] og fnukad 15-05-2025 ls vfHkj{kk esa gS o mlds fo:) iwoZ esa dksbZ vU; vkijkf/kd eqdnek yafcr ugha gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd foHkkx us LVkbysaV eSU;wQ pfjax izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds fo:) 882-89
[2026:RJ-JP:5268] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16849/2025] djksM+ :i, dh dj pksjh ds laca/k esa ifjokn izLrqr fd;k gS tks ek= lquh lquk;h lk{; o laHkkoukvksa ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A foHkkx }kjk fnukad 01-04-2023 ls 31-03-2025 rd 14 e'khuksa dh ?k.Vksa o LihM ds fglkc ls x.kuk dh xbZ gS A tcfd fnukad 01-04-2023 dks daiuh esa 14 e'khusa ugha Fkh A mudk ;g fuosnu gS fd e'khusa vyx&vyx fnukad ij dze'k% fnukad 11-08-2024] 24-09-2024] 07-08-2024] 11-08-2024] 04-09-2024] 04-04-2024] -04-04-2024] 23-08-2023] 27-03-2024] 27-03-2024] 27-03-2024] 10-11-2024] 23-12-2024] 11-01-2025] dks [kjhnh xbZ gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd lHkh e'khusa vkWijs'kuy ugha jgh gSa] buesa ls ,d e'khu dk cspku Hkh fd;k tk pqdk gS A foHkkx }kjk x.kuk fnukad 01-04-2023 ls dh xbZ gS tcfd dqN e'khusa ckn esa [kjhn dh xbZ gS ] bl izdkj foHkkx }kjk x.kuk lgh ugha dh xbZ gS A foHkkx }kjk 24 /k.Vs e'khuksa dk lapkyu gksuk crk;k gS tcfd e'khusa 24 ?k.Vs pyrh gS rks fctyh fcy mlh fglkc ls vkuk pkfg, ysfdu fctyh fcy o"kZ 2024 ls 2025 esa 35000@&:i, izfrekg ls vf/kd dHkh Hkh ugha vk;k gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd foHkkx }kjk Q Vªh dks lhy fd;k x;k Fkk rRi'pkr~ LVkbZysaV daiuh }kjk dj dh jkf'k tek djok;h tkus ij Q Vªh dks fnukd 16-07-2025 dks fjvkWiu Hkh dj fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk dj dh jkf'k tek djok;h xbZ gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd daiuh }kjk fdruh xkfM;ka dgka&dgka Hksth xbZ gSa] bl laca/k esa foHkkx dh vksj ls lh/ks rkSj ij dksbZ Hkh lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA fopkj.k ds nkSjku ek+= ,d lk{kh ds c;ku gq, gS] ekeyk izFke Js.kh eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ;ksX; gS rFkk vf/kdre 5 o"kZ dh ltk dk izko/kku gS] izdj.k dh vUoh{kk esa le; yxsxk] vr% izkFkhZ dks tekur ij NksM+k tkosA mUgksaus vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd, gSa%&
Rishabh Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.10718/2023) decided on 04.12.2023. 2. Vineet Jain v. Union of India (S.L.P. No.4349/2025) decided on 28.04.2025
[2026:RJ-JP:5268] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16849/2025]
Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India [(2023) 2 SCC 621] blds foijhr fo}ku yk vfHk;kstd us tekur izkFkZuk i= dk fojks/k fd;k A mudk fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr LVkbysaV eSU;wQ pfjax izkbZosV fyfeVsM esa Mk;j Vj gS] ftl daiuh esa iku elkyk dk mRiknu fd;k tkrk jgk gS ijUrq fcuk bZosfcy ds eky lIykbZ fd;k x;k gS] daiuh dk ,d vU; funs'kd vk'kh"k vHkh fxjQ~rkj ugha gqvk gS A bl izdkj fnukad 01-04-2023 ls 31-03-2025 rd e'khuksa dh la[;k] e'khuksa dh LihM o e'khuksa dh {kerk ds vk/kkj ij x.kuk dh xbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 882-89 djksM :i, dh dj oapuk dh xbZ gS A mudk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd ek s ij ij dPph lkexzh Hkh ik;h x;h gS] daiuh esa nks Mh-th-lsV Hkh yxok j[ks gSaA vijk/k dh izd`fr xaHkhj gS] vr% tekur vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkosA geus nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr rdksZ o fordksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk miyC/k leLr lk{;] lacaf/kr nLrkostkr o lkexzh dk voyk u fd;k A bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkB ekg ls vf/kd le; ls vfHkj{kk esa gS] izdj.k izFke Js.kh eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ;ksX; gS ftlesa vf/kdre 5 o"kZ dh ltk dk izko/kku gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar&Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India [(2023) 2 SCC 621] dk iSjk la[;k&6 lqlaxr gS tks fuEu izdkj gS %& "In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the
[2026:RJ-JP:5268] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16849/2025] respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner." vr% izdj.k dh rF;kRed fLFkfr] vuqla/kku ds nkSjku izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ds fo:) ladfyr dh xbZ lk{; dh izd`fr] e'khuksa dks [kjhnus dh fnukad] fctyh ds fcy] izkFkhZ dh vfHkj{kk vof/k] ekeys dk eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ;ksX; gk j vf/kdre 5 o"kZ dh ltk dk izko/kku gksus] vUoh{kk esa yxus okys le; o vU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj djus ds ckn] izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ vafre jk; O;Dr fd, fcuk izkFkhZ dks tekur dh lqfo/kk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ifj.kker% ;g tekur vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks"kizn 2]00]000@&:i, ¼v{kjs :i;s nks yk[k ek=½ dk O;fDrxr ca/ki= o 1]00]000&1]00]000@& :i;s dh nks lqn`<+ ,oa fo'oluh; izfrHkwfr;ka bl vk'k; dh izLrqr dj ns fd og izdj.k ds fopkj.k ds nkSjku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izR; rkjh[k is'kh ij mifLFkr gksrk jgsxk rFkk U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fcuk Hkkjr ns'k ugha NksM+sxk] rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr xkSjo <kdk iq= txiky flag <kdk dks ¼;fn og vU; fdlh izdj.k esa oakfNr u gksa rks½ vfoyEc tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tkosA (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J Rishikesh Soni/reserve
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.