Kumar Luv Agarwal vs. The Union Of INDIA Represented By Shri Saket Intelligence Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Kumar Luv Agarwal, is an accused in Complaint Case No. 2933 of 2025, facing charges under sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the Central Goods & Services Tax, 2017. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) alleges that the petitioner evaded GST amounting to Rs. 11.00 crore for the financial years 2021 till date by setting up several fake firms. The prosecution report has been submitted, and the petitioner has been in custody for over two months. The case is pending before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur.

Held

The Court considered the period of custody of the petitioner and was inclined to enlarge him on bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the fact that the petitioner had already undergone more than two months of incarceration, and the prosecution report/charge sheet had been filed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations of GST evasion or the establishment of fake firms. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the primary focus was on the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the charges under sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the Central Goods & Services Tax, 2017, the alleged evasion of Rs. 11.00 crore, and the period of custody. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the prosecution report has been submitted and that the maximum punishment for GST evasion is five years. He highlighted that he has already been in custody for more than two months, implying this period is substantial enough for bail consideration. Opposite Party's (DGGI) Argument: The DGGI contended that the petitioner has set up several fake firms to evade GST and that a charge sheet has been submitted under various sections of the B.N.S. (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, though the judgment incorrectly refers to B.N.S. instead of CGST Act sections for the alleged offenses).