Naresh Chandra Jajra S/O Late Shri Balkrishan Jajra vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, ordering the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. The decision was made considering the contentions of both parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The specific reasoning for granting bail, beyond the general statement of considering contentions and circumstances, is not elaborated, nor is there a detailed discussion of the legal arguments presented by either side in relation to the admissibility of evidence or the petitioner's role. The operative direction is the grant of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Naresh Chandra Jajra, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with a case registered under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since December 24, 2021. The charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner contends he is wrongly implicated, not the proprietor or owner of Sagar Industries, and had retracted his statement given under Section 70 of the GST Act. He also claims to have given Sagar Industries to Abhishek Gehlot via an agreement and that statements of Abhishek Gehlot and Lalit Vyas cannot be used against him. The maximum punishment is five years, and the trial may take time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the alleged evasion of GST amounting to approximately Rs. 21 crores and the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues he is wrongly implicated, has retracted his Section 70 statement, and is not the owner of Sagar Industries, which was given to Abhishek Gehlot. He relies on judgments in Vikas Bansal v. Union of India, Dananjay Singh v. Union of India, and Kishore Wadhwani v. State of M.P. The conclusion of the trial may take a long time. Respondent's (Union of India) Arguments: The respondent contends that the petitioner had evaded GST of approximately Rs. 21 crores and is the main culprit. Statements recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act are admissible. The respondent distinguishes the petitioner's case from Dananjay Singh and likens it to Vinay Kant Ameta v. Union of India, where bail was rejected by the High Court and granted by the Apex Court only upon depositing Rs. 200 crores. The gravity of the offense warrants dismissal of the bail application.