Vijay Yadav vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Vijay Yadav, proprietor of M/s. Maya Steel & Enterprise and M/s. Mayra Steel Enterprises, is seeking regular bail. He was arrested on July 20, 2026, in connection with Crime No. Arr 05/2026 registered at Police Station SGST, Naya Raipur. The prosecution alleges that the applicant fraudulently availed and utilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) exceeding Rs. 9.54 crores, causing a loss to the public exchequer. An FIR was registered against him by the Deputy Commissioner, State GST. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been in custody since his arrest. He has one prior criminal antecedent registered in 2018.

Held

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, Vijay Yadav. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent from 2018, that the charge-sheet has been filed, and that the applicant has been in custody since July 20, 2026. The Court also noted that the offences under Sections 132(1)(B) and 132(1)(C) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, are non-bailable and compoundable. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for the grant of bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court, along with conditions to not influence witnesses, act prejudicially to the trial, and appear on each date until the trial's disposal. The trial court was directed to decide the case on its own merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail, considering the nature of the allegations, the amount of ITC allegedly defrauded, his period of custody, and his criminal antecedent, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been in jail since July 20, 2026. They contended that the offences under Sections 132(1)(B) and 132(1)(C) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, are non-bailable and compoundable. The applicant has only one criminal antecedent from 2018, and therefore, he should be granted bail. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, highlighting that the applicant fraudulently availed ITC of Rs. 9.54 crores, causing a loss to the public exchequer. They also pointed to the applicant's criminal antecedent as a reason to reject the bail application.