Sameer Chaudhary S/O Vishwanath Chaudhary vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning for this decision was based on the contention put forth by the counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the High Court. The Court found this argument persuasive enough to grant bail. The ratio decidendi is that if similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on grounds of parity. The operative direction was that the accused petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The petitioner is required to appear before the trial court and any court to which the matter is transferred on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon.

Facts

The petitioner, Sameer Chaudhary, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The application pertains to offences registered under File No. DGGI/JZU/INV/Grp-K/GST/48/Part IV/2018-19, for alleged violations of Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur, is the respondent. The petitioner's counsel argued that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by the High Court. The Union of India, through its counsel, opposed the bail application. The court considered the contentions presented by both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. considering the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contentions: The primary contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court. This argument implies that the petitioner should also be granted bail on grounds of parity. Respondent's Contentions: The counsel for the Union of India opposed the bail application. No specific arguments or legal provisions were detailed in the judgment regarding the respondent's opposition.