Ravi Goyal vs. The State Of M.P.

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. While acknowledging that the case primarily involves documentary evidence, the Court noted that other co-accused persons are evading notices. In such circumstances, it would be premature to allow the bail application as there is a possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence. The Court dismissed the application but granted liberty to the applicant to renew his prayer after the charge sheet is filed or after the other accused persons are arrested. The Court did not explicitly decide on the compoundability of the offence or the alleged coercion, focusing on the ongoing investigation and potential for tampering.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Ravi Goyal under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (or Section 439 of CrPC, 1973) in connection with Crime No. 748/2025. The applicant is implicated for offences under Section 132(1)(B) & (C) read with Section 69(1) of the GST Act, 2017. The applicant has been in judicial custody since May 9, 2025. The allegations are that the applicant, along with co-accused, evaded GST amounting to over 60 crores through M/s Shreenath Agro Enterprises using forged documents. The applicant's role was allegedly to manage the affairs of this enterprise. The applicant claims to have cooperated with the investigation, retracted his statement given under coercion, and that the offence is compoundable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 748/2025 registered for offences under Section 132(1)(B) & (C) read with Section 69(1) of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant has cooperated with the investigation and provided a statement. No recovery is to be made from him. His arrest is allegedly retaliatory for a complaint made to the Human Rights Commission. The applicant has retracted his statement given under coercion. The offence under Section 132 of the GST Act is compoundable, making further custody unnecessary. Respondent's Arguments: The applicant has not cooperated with the investigation. Statements of other co-accused are yet to be recorded, and they are evading notices. Releasing the applicant on bail might lead to interference with the investigation. The applicant and co-accused allegedly generated fabricated GST invoices without actual supply, obtaining benefits worth crores. The respondent relied on various decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court.