Dheeraj Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant's prior arrest and bail in connection with offences under the CGST Act and IPC, initiated by the DGGI, Pune, prima facie suggests that the current action by the respondent could amount to double jeopardy, referencing Supreme Court decisions in T.T. Antony, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, and Arnab Ranjan Goswami. The Court also considered the principles for granting anticipatory bail as enumerated in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing factors like the nature of the offence, the role of the applicant, and the likelihood of influencing investigation or fleeing justice. Given that the alleged amount involved was around Rs. 10 Crores, leading to a maximum sentence of five years, and considering the possibility of compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Act, the Court found that custodial interrogation was not warranted and detaining the applicant would adversely affect his business. Consequently, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Facts

The applicant, Dheeraj Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. The FIR, dated 21.06.2025, stemmed from a complaint alleging that the complainant was induced to form a proprietorship firm, 'Maa Narmada Traders,' and obtain GST registration to secure a larger loan. Without the complainant's consent, an email and mobile number were registered for GST OTP verification, leading to GST registration. Subsequently, the complainant was informed of tax dues of Rs 72,66,408/- against the firm, with bogus transactions of crores of rupees shown. Co-accused allegedly filed fraudulent GST returns and floated other bogus firms, causing a loss of approximately Rs 33.80 Crores to the State exchequer. The applicant's counsel highlighted his prior arrest and bail in July 2021 for offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act and IPC, initiated by the DGGI, Pune.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present prosecution amounts to double jeopardy, considering the applicant was previously arrested and granted bail for offences under the CGST Act and IPC arising from similar allegations? - Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argued that the current prosecution on the same counts of allegations, after having been previously arrested and granted bail for similar offences under the CGST Act and IPC, amounts to double jeopardy, citing Supreme Court decisions in T.T. Antony, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, and Arnab Ranjan Goswami. They also contended that various High Courts have quashed complaints where GST authorities resorted to IPC offences, and that anticipatory bail should be considered as there is no embargo under the GST Act, especially when the maximum punishment is five years for amounts exceeding Rs. 5 Crores. - Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh).