Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Paresh Nathalal Chauhan, filed a successive bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was arrested for an offense under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegation is that the petitioner obtained tax credit of approximately Rs. 60 Crores through 35 fictitious firms, allegedly established by him for claiming tax credit on goods not sold by raising fake invoices. The petitioner has been in custody for approximately 16 months. The current application is the second successive bail application, as the first was rejected on 05.05.2020, and a subsequent one was dismissed on 26.04.2021 due to no substantial change in circumstances. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to regular bail. The Court considered the seriousness of the offense, which involves a loss of Rs. 60 crores to the public exchequer due to a large-scale racket involving fictitious firms and fake invoices. The Court noted that the applicant's previous bail applications were rejected due to the seriousness of the offense and the lack of substantial change in circumstances. The current application also failed to present any new or exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found no substantial change in circumstances since the previous orders rejecting the applications. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the seriousness of the alleged offense and the lack of substantial change in circumstances since the previous rejection of his bail applications. Petitioner's Arguments: Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argued that in a similar case, a coordinate bench had released the accused on bail, considering the period of incarceration (since 06.01.2020) and the enlargement of co-accused on bail. He contended that despite the prosecution's claim of multiple persons being involved, only the applicant was arrested. The petitioner has been in custody for approximately 16 months, and a recovery of almost Rs. 40,00,00,000/- has been made, warranting his release on bail. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondent (State of Gujarat).