Ramprasad vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, finding force in the applicant's contentions. The primary reasoning was based on the Division Bench's order in WP No. 21614/2024, which held that prosecution cannot bypass Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, to register FIRs for IPC offences when the alleged fraud pertains to tax benefits. The Court noted that this order had not been stayed by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Court considered that other accused persons in identical situations had already been granted bail by the High Court. The applicant's prolonged incarceration since December 26, 2022, and the anticipated delay in the trial's conclusion were also significant factors. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) of CrPC, 1973.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Ramprasad (the applicant) under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 / 439 of CrPC, 1973. The applicant is implicated in Crime No. 62/2022 registered at Police Station STF, Bhopal Unit, Indore, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC, 1860. The allegation is of fraud to obtain tax benefits. The applicant has been in jail since December 26, 2022. The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution cannot bypass the special provisions of Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, and lodge an FIR for IPC offences. The applicant also pointed to previous bail grants to identically placed co-accused. The State opposed bail, citing the rejection of a co-accused's bail by the Supreme Court and additional cases against the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution can bypass the special provisions of Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, and lodge an FIR for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when the alleged offense relates to obtaining tax benefits? (Question of law, turning on Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017 and relevant IPC sections). Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contended that the Division Bench of the High Court, in WP No. 21614/2024 dated 11/09/2024, held that prosecution cannot bypass Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017. They also submitted that other identically placed accused persons have been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 33801/2024 and 54522/2024 vide order dated 16/07/2025. The applicant is on bail since 26/12/2022, and trial conclusion will take time. Revenue's arguments: The State opposed the prayer, stating that the bail application of co-accused Ajay Parmar was rejected by the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 8868/2024 dated 02/09/2024, and two more cases are registered against the applicant. The State also noted that the Division Bench order is under challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 8675/2025, though no stay has been granted.