Gurmukh Jumnai vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Gurmukh Jumnani, is seeking regular bail in connection with Case No. 03/2025, registered under Section 132(1)(a) read with Section 132(5) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleges that the applicant clandestinely manufactured gutkha under the brand name "SITAR" at multiple factories, leading to an alleged loss of Rs. 22,24,61,758 to the public exchequer. The applicant has been in custody since September 23, 2025. The case involves alleged evasion of tax and cess, with the amount exceeding Rs. 5 crore, making it punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the SGST Act, 2017. The applicant claims false implication due to personal animosity and argues that the quantum of evasion can only be determined through statutory assessment.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the applicant. It reasoned that the alleged offence under Section 132 of the CGGST Act, 2017, is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, with a maximum sentence of five years. The Court noted the applicant's full cooperation with the investigation, including searches and summons under Section 70 CGST Act, and found no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Considering the applicant is a permanent resident, has no intention to abscond, is ready to furnish adequate security, and has been in custody since September 23, 2025, the Court concluded that his continued custodial detention is not warranted. The Court granted bail without commenting on the merits of the case, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The bail order is to remain in force until the disposal of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the allegations of tax evasion under the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? The applicant argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated due to personal animosity, relying on the fact that the exact quantum of tax evasion requires statutory assessment. He contended that his arrest and detention are unwarranted and violate his constitutional rights. The applicant also submitted that the prosecution's remand applications aim to prolong his incarceration, and the period for filing a complaint under Instruction No. 2/2022-23 is expiring. He asserted full cooperation with authorities under Section 70 CGST Act, with no risk of tampering or influencing witnesses. Furthermore, no notice or assessment under Section 75(4) CGST has been conducted, and procedural safeguards under BNSS 2023, including the 60-day complaint filing period, apply. The applicant is a permanent resident, willing to furnish security, and alleges malafide intent behind the FIR as a counterblast to his complaint. The State argued that the applicant and his father allegedly operated nine factories between 2021 and 2025, leading to a tax loss exceeding Rs. 22.24 crore. Large quantities of gutkha were recovered, and processing of areca nuts occurred in his father's factories. The State contended that the case falls under Section 132(1)(a) read with Section 132(5) of the CGGST Act, 2017, attracting punishment under Section 132(1)(a) due to tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crore, and that custodial remand is necessary due to the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.