Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The Court considered that the applicant had been in custody since August 1, 2026, and a charge-sheet had been filed. It noted that the mere pendency of further investigation or recording of witness statements is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail, as investigations cannot continue indefinitely. Regarding the apprehension of tampering with evidence, the Court emphasized that suitable conditions can be imposed to address such concerns. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vineet Jain vs. Union of India, the Court observed that in economic offences with limited sentences, bail should normally be granted unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The maximum punishment under Section 132 of the CGST Act is 5 years, and the offence is triable by JMFC. The Court also referred to the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, stating that keeping an accused behind bars amounts to pre-trial conviction and that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, and the principle of personal liberty under Article 21, the Court found it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail with stringent conditions.

Facts

The applicant, Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka, filed an application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail was sought in connection with a case registered by the DGGI, Surat Zonal Unit, for offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 132 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The applicant, who claims to be an accountant, has been in jail since August 1, 2026. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant contends he is falsely implicated, with no further recovery or discovery needed from him. The revenue, represented by DGGI, opposed the bail, alleging the applicant was not merely an accountant but actively forged documents and registrations for firms to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹43-44 Crores. The revenue also highlighted that the individuals in whose names the firms were registered disowned their signatures, and further investigation was ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, who claims to be an accountant, is entitled to regular bail in connection with alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, Section 132 of the Gujarat GST Act, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, considering he has been in custody since August 1, 2026, and a charge-sheet has been filed? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant is innocent, falsely implicated, and merely provided accounting assistance. Since the charge-sheet is filed and the maximum punishment is up to 5 years, and the offence is triable by JMFC, bail should be granted. All relevant materials have been seized, eliminating the possibility of tampering. The applicant is in jail since August 1, 2026. Revenue's Arguments: The applicant is not just an accountant but actively involved in forging documents and firm registrations to fraudulently avail ITC of ₹43-44 Crores. The individuals in whose names the firms were registered have disowned their signatures, establishing the applicant's prima facie involvement. Further investigation is ongoing, and there is a possibility of escalating fraud and tampering with volatile electronic data if the applicant is released on bail. The applicant may abscond, preventing his trial.