Kamal Kishor Agarwal S/O Meghraj Agarwal vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kamal Kishor Agarwal, is seeking bail in connection with a criminal case registered under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case involves alleged tax evasion by M/s Styllent Manufacturing Private Limited and M/s Krishna Industries, with amounts of ₹882.89 crores and ₹660.89 crores respectively. The petitioner claims he is neither a director nor an owner of these companies and has no connection with them. He asserts that the case is based on hearsay evidence and that the investigation is complete, with a charge sheet filed. The petitioner has been in custody since May 15, 2025, and argues that the trial is likely to take time. The respondents, the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, oppose the bail application, stating that the petitioner is a mastermind and abettor, and that there is evidence against him, including his statements recorded during the investigation. They also mention a previous pending case against the petitioner involving ₹1543 crores of tax evasion.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The Court noted that the petitioner is neither a director nor an owner of the companies in question, and the arguments presented by his counsel are reasonable and deserve consideration. The Court found that the documentary evidence produced along with the charge sheet does not establish any direct evidence against the petitioner. It was observed that the petitioner has been in custody for over six months. The Court also acknowledged that the case is triable by a Magistrate court, with a maximum sentence of 5 years, and that the trial is likely to take time. Citing the case of Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India, the Court reasoned that the investigation is complete, the charge sheet has been filed, and the evidence is primarily documentary and electronic, with ocular evidence from official witnesses, reducing the apprehension of tampering. Therefore, considering the factual position, the nature of evidence, the period of incarceration, the triable nature of the offense, and the time likely to be consumed in the trial, it was deemed appropriate to grant bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish 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 prior permission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, Kamal Kishor Agarwal, is entitled to be released on bail, considering the allegations of tax evasion and his alleged role as a mastermind and abettor under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated, the investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed. He denies being a director or owner of the companies involved and claims no connection to them. He argues that the case is based on hearsay evidence and that no documentary evidence has been produced against him. He also highlights that he has been in custody for over six months and that the trial, being a first-class magistrate court matter with a maximum sentence of 5 years, is likely to take time. He relies on several High Court judgments, including Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India, to support his plea for bail, emphasizing the completion of investigation and the time likely to be taken for trial. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents argue that the petitioner is not merely a director or owner but a mastermind and abettor. They state that statements recorded during the investigation contain evidence against him. They also point to a previous pending case against the petitioner involving a significant amount of tax evasion, arguing that the gravity of the offense is serious and thus the bail application should be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 21-11-2025 izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad& 02-07-2025 ds fo:) ;g tekur vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk
[2025:RJ-JP:47167] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-8753/2025] 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&DC-EW-ll/2025-26/53 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] vuqla/kku iw.kZ gk j vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS] izkFkhZ fnukad 15-05-2025 ls vfHkj{kk esa gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd foHkkx us LVkbysaV eSU;wQ pfjax izkbZosV fyfeVsM o eSllZ d`".kk baMLVªht ds fo:) dze'k% 882-89 djksM+ ,oa 660-89 djksM+ :i, dh dj pksjh ds laca/k esa ifjokn izLrqr fd;k gS A mudk fuosnu gS fd mDr daiuh o b.MLVªh esa u rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr Mk;j Vj gS] u gh og ekfyd gS o uk gh og ykHkkFkhZ gS ] izkFkhZ dk buls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ laca/k ugh jgk gS] izkFkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ Hkh nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS] ek= lquh lquk;h lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g ifjokn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A ekeyk izFke Js.kh eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ;ksX; gS rFkk vf/kdre 5 o"kZ dh ltk dk izko/kku gSA bl laca/k esa ;ksX; vf/koDrk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls U;kf;d n`"Vkar Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India [(2023) 2 SCC 621] izLrqr dj mlds iSjk la[;k&6 dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k x;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd 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%& 1. & another, CRLMB No.20392//2021 dt.08.03.2022. 2. Rishabh Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.10718/2023) decided on 04.12.2023. 3. Vineet Jain v. Union of India (S.L.P. No.4349/2025) No.6773/2025 dt.26.06.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:47167] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-8753/2025]
No.7080/2025 dt.31.10.2025
No.13548-13550/2024 dt. 25.10.2024. 7. Dananjay Singh Vs,. Union of India,CRLMB No.18825/2021 dt.05.02.2022. 8. No.7605/2019 dt.02.06.2020 and 9. No.4413/2025 dt.25.04.2025
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 o eSllZ d`".kk baMLVªht esa Mk;j Vj ugha gSa uk gh og ekfyd gS ijUrq og ekLVjekbZ.M o drkZ/krkZ gS A vuqla/kku ds nkSjku muds }kjk lk{khx.k ds c;ku fy, x, gSa mlesa Hkh ;g lk{; izdV gq;h gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ds fo:) ,d izdj.k igys ls yafcr gS] bl izdj.k esa 1543 djksM :i, dj pksjh dk ekeyk gS] 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;kA cgl ds nkSjku ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr jgh gS fd izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr LVkbysaV eSU;wQ pfjax izkbZosV fyfeVsM o eSllZ d`".kk baMLVªht esa u rks Mk;j Vj gS o u gh ekfyd gS ] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk }kjk tks rdZ j[ks x, gSa mUgsa utjvankt ugha fd;k tk ldrk ,oa os rdZ fopkj ;ksX; gSaA vkjksi i= ds lkFk tks lk{; nLrkost izLrqr fd, x, gSa muls izdV gS fd izkFkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ Hkh nLrkosth lk{; izdV ugha gq;h gS A izkFkhZ dks lk{khx.k ds ekSf[kd c;kuksa ds vk/kkj ij fyIr fd;k x;k gS A ;g Hkh izdV gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr 6 ekg ls vf/kd le; ls vfHkj{kk esa gSA 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 gS A bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
[2025:RJ-JP:47167] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-8753/2025] 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 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] 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
[2025:RJ-JP:47167] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-8753/2025] 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 dey fd'kksj vxzoky iq= es?kjkt vxzoky 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/07
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.