Ankit Bansal S/O Shri Shriniwas vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ankit Bansal, filed a second bail application directly before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, bypassing the trial court. The petitioner's counsel stated that approaching the trial court first might cause delays and necessitate a further appeal to the High Court. The respondent is the Union of India, through the Directorate of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit. The judgment does not specify the tax period(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this second bail application before the High Court without prior recourse to the trial court.
Held
The Court held that while it possesses concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a second bail application, it is desirable for the accused-petitioner to approach the trial court first, particularly when a trial is ongoing. Direct approach to the High Court is permissible only in cases where extraordinary circumstances are established. In this instance, the petitioner did not demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances warranting a direct approach. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the bail application to approach the trial court. The High Court granted this liberty and directed the trial court to decide any subsequent bail application expeditiously, within seven working days.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court can entertain a second bail application directly, bypassing the trial court, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that approaching the trial court first might lead to delays and require a subsequent approach to the High Court, implying a desire for expediency. The respondent did not present arguments as the matter was withdrawn. The court relied on the principle that while concurrent jurisdiction exists, it is desirable to approach the trial court first for second bail applications, especially during ongoing trials, unless extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 16/09/2025
This is second bail application filed by the petitioner.
The record reflects that without approaching the trial Court, the petitioner has directly moved the second bail application before this Court. No extraordinary circumstances have been shown by the petitioner so as to avoid the juri iction of the trial Court to entertain the bail application. The only reason expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, this process may take some time and in case, relief is not granted by the trial Court, the petitioner will have to again approach this Court.
[2025:RJ-JP:37708] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11763/2025]
It is settled that this Court has concurred juri iction to entertain the bail application, yet for the sake of judicial display and in order to maintain consistency, more particularly in the cases where trial is going on, it is always desirable that while moving a second bail application, the accused-petitioner should approach the trial Court first. However, in the cases where extraordinary circumstances are established by the petitioner, only in such cases, the accused-petitioner can directly approach this Court.
In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant bail application with liberty to approach the trial Court. In case, any bail application is filed by the petitioner before the trial Court, the same shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law in an expeditious manner but not later than a period of 7 working days.
This second stay application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/3
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.