Sanket Mit et Mittal v. Central GS ral GST Department
Case Details
CRM-M- -44925-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 231 CRM-M-44925-2025 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 .2025 Sanket Mit et Mittal v. Central GS ral GST Department …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: er of Mr. Dheeraj Mittal, father of Mr. Sanket Mittal, petitioner None for the respondent. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Upon a call given by Punja Punjab and Haryana High Court B urt Bar Association ciation, the Members of the Bar are ab are abstaining from work. 2. This petition for grant of bail f bail under Section 483 of BNSS, ha SS, has been filed ccused filed by petitioner, an accused in criminal complaint N t No. COMA/518 518/2025 dated 5.7.2025, titled titled “Mr. Vikas Kumar Verm erma, Superinten intendent, CGST Commissionerat nerate v. Sh. Sanket Mittal an l and another,” ” under Section 132 of Central G ntral Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 ( 017 (in short “the C “the CGST Act”). 3. M/s Balaji Mobile Addition h ition has been engaged in the trading o ading of mobile pho le phones (especially I-phones). On On perusal of GST returns availab vailable on the GST e GST Portal, it came to notice that e that M/s Balaji Mobile Addition ha tion had availed ITC ed ITC from various suppliers includ including M/s Monit Enterprises, wh es, who had passed passed on ineligible ITC to the tune o tune of Rs.30.4 crores to it during th g the HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 2- -2 period De d December, 2023 to March, 20 h, 2024 using goods-less invoice nvoices. Accordingl rdingly, a show cause notice dated 19 ted 19.3.2024 (Annexure P-2) followe ollowed by order d rder dated 26.3.2024 (Annexure P- -3) for cancellation of registratio istration w.e.f. 29.2 . 29.2.2024 were issued. Against gainst the order (Annexure P-3), a , an application cation for revocation of order was fil as filed which was rejected vide ord de order dated 30.4 30.4.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed assed by the Assistant Commission issioner holding th ing that the tax payer firm has has availed ITC to the tune o tune of Rs.30,54,15 0,54,15,229/- from one M/s Monit E onit Enterprises. The statutory appe appeal preferred b rred by petitioner against the order (Annexure P-4) was allowed vid ed vide order dated r dated 8.5.2024 (Annexure P-5) by r ) by revoking the cancellation and th and the registration
Facts
tration of the aforesaid firm was rest as restored. Thereafter, the responde pondent proceeded eeded to freeze the ITC ledger of the f f the firm by invoking Rule 86A of th A of the CGST Ru T Rules against ed the alleged ting ITC availment amounting I to Rs.30,54,15 0,54,15,229/-. Against the action of th n of the respondent, M/s Balaji Mobi Mobile Addition fi tion filed CWP-1835802924. This This Court vide order date 24.9.202 .9.2024 (Annexure exure P-6) issued an interim order di rder directing the respondent to releas release the account ccount as well as the electronic credit credit ledger. The said writ petition tition is pending tri trial adjudication. On the basis basis of said allegations of fraudule udulent availment a ment and passing of ITC, petitioner, w , who looks after business activitie ctivities of M/s Ba /s Balaji Mobile Addition was arre as arrested, on 6.5.2025. Thereafte ereafter, respondent ndent moved an application before le fore learned Chief Judicial Magistrat gistrate, Faridabad abad seeking permission to record record the statement of petitioner o oner on 8.5.2025, w 025, which was allowed. Petitioner, ioner, who was arrested on 06.05.202 05.2025 has been in een in custody since then. Complain plaint was filed before the compete mpetent Court after t after completion of necessary inv ry investigation/enquiry, the same same is pending be ing before the Court. HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 3- -3 4. Petitioner moved an applicatio lication for grant of regular bail befo l before learned Chi ed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridaba ridabad, which came to be dismissed issed in terms of o s of order dated 13.5.2025. Agai Against the order dated 13.5.202 .5.2025, petitioner m ioner moved an application before efore the learned Additional Session essions Judge, Fari e, Faridabad, which also came to be d to be dismissed in terms of order date er dated 25.7.2025 ( 2025 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved of th d of the same, present petition has bee as been filed. 5.
Legal Reasoning
We are of the view that that the appellants are entitled to th to the grant of bail pending ing trial on stringent conditions ons in order to ally the appreh prehension expressed by CBI.” (emphasis added dded) Further still, recently, in Ashut Ashutosh Garg’s case (supra), Hon’bl on’ble Supreme C eme Court granted bail in a matter w atter where the accused defrauded th ded the State exche exchequer of Rs.1032 crore as Input Input Tax Credit by creating 294 fak 94 fake firms, citin , citing long custody of 09 months a nths as well as the fact that maximu mum punishment shment in the offence under Section 13 tion 132 CGST Act is 05 years. A two Judge bench of th of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt in Ratnambar mbar Kaushik’s case (supra), , deliberated upon the largely large documentar mentary and electronic nature of evide f evidence as well as the prolonged tri trial in matters p atters pertaining to tax evasion under t nder the CGST Act, where the accuse accused had underg ndergone about 4 months of custody, stody, and opined as follows: “6. In considering the appli pplication for bail, it is noted that th at the petitioner was arrested on 21. 21.07.2022 and while in custody, th dy, the investigation has been comple mpleted and the charge sheet has bee s been filed. Even if it is taken note t ote that the alleged evasion of tax b tax by the petitioner is to the extent a tent as provided under Section 132(1 132(1) (l)(i), the punishment provid ovided is, imprisonment which ma h may extend to 5 years and fin fine. The petitioner has alread lready undergone incarceration for for more than four months an s and completion of trial, in any any event, would take some tim time. Needless to mention that the the petitioner if released on bail, ail, is required to adhere to the the conditions to be imposed an d and diligently participate in the the trial. Further, in a case of th of the present nature, the evidence nce to be tendered by the responden ndent would essentially be documen umentary and electronic. The ocula ocular HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 12- -12 evidence will be through offic official witnesses, due to which ther there can be no apprehension on of tampering, intimidating o ng or influencing. Therefore, ke keeping all ts these aspects in perspective, in the facts and c nd circumstances of the present cas t case, we find it proper to grant the p the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. Hence, it is directed th ed that the petitioner be released o ed on bail subject to the conditions ions to be imposed by the trial Cour Court, which among others, shall als ll also include the condition to dire direct the petitioner to deposit his t his passport. Further, such oth other conditions shall also be impos posed by the trial Court to secure th re the presence of the petitioner to d to diligently participate in the trial. rial. It is further directed that the p he petitioner be produced before th re the trial Court forthwith, to ensure nsure compliance of this order.” ded) (emphasis added) It thus emerges that even in ca n in cases involving economic offence ffences, the Court s ourt seized of the matter has to go th go through the gravity of the offenc offence, the object bject of the Act, the attending circ g circumstances, etc. Thus, econom onomic offences ca ces cannot be categorized in one g one group and the Court should n uld not proceed on eed on the presumption that “Denial o ial of Bail is the Rule and grant bein being the exceptio eption”. 9. In the case in hand, the allega allegations against petitioner is that that he is key-pers person in creating/operating firms firms and wrongfully availed/passe /passed input tax c t tax credit amounting to over Rs.30 30 crores, thus, causing loss to th s to the State Exch Exchequer. These claims are yet to to be proved. The fact that he ha he has been in cu in custody since 06.05.2025, has b has been admitted by the responde pondent department rtment. His (petitioner) further detenti etention is not justified as the evidenc vidence to be rend rendered by complainant-departmen artment is primarily documentary an ary and electronic. ronic. The same (further incarceration eration) would be violative of his rig right under Artic r Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind of India, including right to speedy tri edy trial HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 13- -13 and would, ould, thus, also be against the princi principle of “Bail is a general rule an rule and incarceratio ceration is an exception” as held held by Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt in Dataram m vs. State of Uttar Pradesh R.C.R. esh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R (Criminal) inal) 131. 10. Resultantly, petitioner is grant granted the concession of bail subje subject to his furni furnishing bail bonds and two sound sound sureties of Rs.1 lakh each to th to the satisfaction faction of learned trial Court/Duty Ma ty Magistrate concerned. The petition etitioner shall abide abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will surre ll surrender their passports and will n will not leave the country with without prior permission of the tri the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner will not ll not tamper with the evidence durin e during the trial. (iii) The petitioner will will not pressurize/ ate intimidate the th sses. prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner will appe ll appear before the trial Court on eac on each and every date fixed, u ixed, unless is exempted by a specif specific order of Court. (v) The petitioner shall not all not commit an offence similar to th ar to the offence of which, they a they are accused, or for commission o ssion of which they are suspecte (vi) The petitioner shall no spected of. hall not directly or indirectly coerc coerce, induce, threaten or pro or promise to any person acquainte uainted with the facts of the cas the case so as to dissuade him/her fro er from disclosing such facts to cts to the Court or to any police offic e officer or tamper with the evide e evidence in any manner. vii) The petitioner shall n hall not in any manner misuse the se their liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall f hall furnish his address and mobi mobile number to the Trial Cou ial Court forthwith and shall not chang t change the same till the conclu conclusion of the trial and in case fo case for HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 14- -14 any reason, the petitio petitioners seek to change any of th of the aforesaid, the same s ame shall be done only with prio h prior intimation to the learne learned Trial Court, stating the reaso reason for the same. (viii) The trial Court/Duty M uty Magistrate may impose any oth y other condition, as deemed emed appropriate while releasing th ing the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made clea de clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty to erty to seek cancellation of bail as gran rder. as granted to petitioner by this Order. 12.
Arguments
Shri Dheeraj Mittal, father father of the petitioner submits th its that petitioner h ioner has been falsely implicated in ted in the present case. The responde pondent issued a sh d a show cause notice dated 19.3.20 19.3.2024 for the cancellation of GS of GST registration tration of M/s Balaji Mobile Add e Addition which was followed b wed by cancellation ellation order dated 26.3.2024. Petiti Petitioner filed revocation applicatio lication which was h was dismissed on 30.4.2024 and th and thereafter, filed a statutory appe appeal before the re the appellate authority, which was was allowed and the cancellation wa ion was revoked. R ked. Respondent also proceeded to fre d to freeze the ITC credit ledger of M r of M/s Balaji Mob ji Mobile Addition for ITC availmen ailment amounting to Rs.30 crores qu res qua M/s Monit Monit Enterprises. The said action of ion of respondent was challenged befo d before this Court Court in CWP-18358-2024 and this C this Court vide order dated 24.9.202 .9.2024 ordered for red for de-freezing of ITC ledger. It r. It has been further submitted that a that all purchases hases from M/s Monit Enterprises w rises were made in normal course o urse of business an ess and in compliance with the provi provisions of Section 16 of the CGS e CGST Act. Furth Further, M/s Balaji Phone Addition dition had purchased mobile phones ones in the regular egular course of business from 187 m 187 suppliers including M/s Mon s Monit Enterprises rprises and all such purchases were du ere duly reflected in the ledger accou account and petitio petitioner made the payment to its to its supplier including M/s Mon Monit Enterprises rprises through banking channel. HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 4- -4 Lastly, prayer for taking a len g a lenient view in favour of petition etitioner has been m been made by extending him the co the concession of bail, for his furth further incarceratio ceration would not serve any useful pu eful purpose. Following judgments have al ave also been tendered and placed o aced on record:- 6. (i) Ganga Ram Vs. State State of Punjab, (2021 (44) GSTL 5 STL 5) of this Court. (ii) Ratnambar Kaushik shik Vs. Union of India, (2022) 022) 1 Centax 278 (SC) of Hon’ble S n’ble Supreme Court. (iii) Vishal Chauhan Vs. H ligence Vs. Haryana State GST (Intelligence Unit), Rohtak, ((2024) 21 Cen 21 Centax 434) of Punjab and Haryan aryana High Court. (iv) Ashutosh Garg Vs. Un entax s. Union of India, ((2024) 20 Centax 595 (SC)). (v) Sandeep Singhal Vs. D Vs. DGGSTI, ((2024) 16 Centax 443 ax 443) of Rajasthan High Court. (vi) Manish Kumar Vs. D Vs. Directorate General, Goods an ds and Services Tax Intelligence (2025- ence Zonal unit, Ludhiana, (2025 GST). TIOL-1233-HC-P&H-GST) (vii) Manoj Gupta Vs. U Vs. Union of India and others, i ers, in CRM-M No.20320 of 202 f 2025 of this Court, decided o ded on 10.07.2025. While opposing the petition, d tion, detailed reply has been filed by th d by the respondent ndent-department reiterating that pet at petitioner is the mastermind of th of the entire netw e network i.e. for the generating fake i fake invoices, passing fraudulent Inp nt Input Tax Credit Credit without actual supply of goods goods causing huge loss of over Rs. er Rs.30 crores to th s to the State Exchequer. It was alleg s alleged in the reply that entire searc e search proceeding eedings were conducted in accordance dance with law, thus no question of an n of any threat, coer t, coercion or intimidation against th inst the petitioner arises and petition etitioner HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 5- -5 himself vol voluntarily admitted regarding thei ng their role in operating various bogu s bogus firms, purc , purchasing their credentials, issu , issuing fake invoices and passin passing fraudulent ulent ITC. Further investigation revea n reveals that all the major suppliers o pliers of bogus taxp s taxpayer firm were found to be non be non-existent. The evidence collecte ollected during the g the course of investigations, s ns, statements recorded of variou various concerned p erned persons, have also been referred ferred to in the reply. Reference has been made to ade to various judgments of Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court, as also that of the other Hi ther High Courts, in support of its stan stand that petitio petitioner, at whose instance these tra ese transactions of goods-less invoice invoices occurred/cr rred/created does not deserve the con he concession of bail, for if the reli e relief sought for i ht for is extended, there is every likelih likelihood of him (petitioner) indulgin dulging in same off me offence, fleeing from the process ocess of justice by not appearing in th g in the Court and t and to tamper with the evidence. D nce. Dismissal of the petition has bee as been d for. prayed for. Reliance has been placed on th d on the following judgments:- 1) 2) 3) SFIO Vs. Nitin Johar Johari and another, in Crl. Appe Appeal No.1381/2019 dated 1 ted 12.09.2019 of Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court. Narain Popli Vs. CB s. CBI, (AIR 2003 SCC 3257) of Hon’ble Supreme Court Court. P.V. Ramana Reddy eddy Vs. Union of India in Wr n Writ Petition No.4764 of 201 of 2019 of Telangana High Court. 4) Shailesh Rajpal Vs. Co Vs. Commissioner, (2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 336) of Madhy Madhya Pradesh High Court. 7. I have heard Mr. Dheeraj Mit raj Mittal, father of petitioner and hav have also gone th gone through the material available on ble on record. HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 6- -6 8. Before expressing any opin opinion on the merits of the riv he rival contentions ntions, it would be appropriate to c e to carefully go through Section 13 ion 132 CGST Act, T Act, which reads as under: - “132. Punishment for certain rtain offences.— (1) Whoever commits an any of the following offence ences, namely:— (a) supplies any goods or or services or both without issue sue of any invoice, in violation of t of the provisions of this Act or th or the rules made thereunder, with th ith the intention to evade tax; (b) issues any invoice or or bill without supply of goods o ds or services or both in violation o on of the provisions of this Act, or th or the rules made thereunder lead leading to wrongful availment o nt or utilisation of input tax credit o dit or refund of tax; (c) avails input tax credit u dit using such invoice or bill referre ferred to in clause (b); shall be punishable–– (i) in cases where re the amount of tax evaded or th or the amount of input tax cre credit wrongly availed or utilized o zed or the amount of refund wr d wrongly taken exceeds five hundre ndred lakh rupees, with impr imprisonment for a term which ma h may extend to five year and w and with fine. (ii) in cases where t re the amount of tax evaded or th or the amount of input tax cre credit wrongly availed or utilized o zed or the amount of refun efund wrongly taken exceeds tw s two hundred lakh rupees b es but does not exceed five hundre ndred lakh rupees, with impr imprisonment for a term which ma h may extend to three years an s and with fine; (iii) in the case of any f any other offence where the amou mount of tax evaded or the am e amount of input tax credit wrong rongly availed or utilised or th r the amount of refund wrongly take taken exceeds one hundred lak d lakh rupees but does not exceed tw ed two hundred lakh rupees, wi s, with imprisonment for a term whic which may extend to one year ear and with fine;” HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 7- -7 A bare perusal of the aforesai foresaid provision leaves no doubt th ubt that the offence ffences alleged to have been committe mmitted by the petitioner are punishab nishable with impri imprisonment for a term which ma ch may extend to 05 years and fin nd fine, meaning th ing thereby that the maximum terms o erms of imprisonment is 05 years. Economic offences by their their very nature pose threat to th t to the State’s fina ’s financial stability and deserve to be e to be dealt with sternly. Question th tion that arises is as is as to what criteria/factors/circum circumstances need to be kept in min in mind while deali e dealing with the petition for grant o rant of bail in such economic offence ffences. At this stag is stage, it would be most appropria ropriate to refer to recent judgment o ment of Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court in “Vineet Jain in Vs. Union of India (Crimin iminal Appeal No l No.2269 of 2025 (arising out o ut of SLP(Crl.) No.4349 of 2025 2025), wherein wh ein while discussing the current state t state of affairs with regard to grant o grant of bail arising rising out of CGST cases, it was held s held as under:- “The offences alleged against ainst the appellant are under Claus lauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 1 n 132(1) of the Central Goods an s and Services Tax Act, 2017. The The maximum sentence is of 5 yea years with fine. A charge-sheet ha t has been filed. The appellant is t is in custody for a period of almos lmost 7 months. The case is triable b ble by a Court of a Judicial Magistra istrate. The sentence is limited and and in any case, the prosecution is is based on documentary evidenc dence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that that in a case like this, the appella ellant has been denied the benefit o fit of bail at all levels, including th ng the High Court and ultimately, ely, he was forced to approach th h this Court. These are the cases ses where in normal course, befor before the Trial Courts, the accused used should get bail unless there ar re are some extra ordinary circumst mstances.” Appropriate here would also b also be to refer to judgment of Hon’bl on’ble HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 8- -8 Supreme C eme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CB . CBI, (2012(1) SCC 40), wherein th rein the Sessions C ions Court and the High Court had de ad declined the bail applications of th s of the accused, w sed, who had been alleged of commit ommitting forgery and cheating, on th , on the ground that nd that the offences are serious, involv involved deep rooted planning and hug nd huge loss had be had been caused to the Exchequer, as uer, as also that if allowed the relief o relief of bail the po the possibility of accused tampering pering with the evidence could not b not be ruled out. I out. In that context, Hon’ble Supreme preme Court held as under:- “43. When the undertrial pris prisoners are detained in jail custod ustody to an indefinite period, Ar Article 21 of the Constitution ion is violated. Every person, deta detained or arrested, is entitled led to speedy trial, the question is: w is: whether the same is possible in th in the present case. There are seven eventeen accused persons. Stateme tement of the witnesses runs to s to several hundred pages and th d the documents on which reliance ance is placed by the prosecution, ion, is voluminous. The trial may tak y take considerable time and it loo looks to us that the appellants, who who are in jail, have to remain in ja in jail longer than the period of dete detention, had they been convicted. ted. It is not in the interest of justic justice that accused should be in ja in jail for an indefinite period. No d No doubt, the offence alleged again gainst the appellants is a serious one s one in terms of alleged huge loss loss to the State exchequer, that, by t, by itself, should not deter us fro s from enlarging the appellants on s on bail when there is no seriou erious contention of the respondent dent that the accused, if released o sed on bail, would interfere with th h the trial or tamper with evidenc dence. We do not see any good r d reason to detain the accused sed in custody, that too, after the co e completion of the investigation an n and filing of the charge-sheet. 44. This Court, in the cas case of State of Kerala v. Ranee aneef, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) al) 381 : 2011(1) Recent Ape Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 116 : (201 (2011)1 SCC 784, has stated :- "15. In deciding bail a ail applications an important facto factor which should certainly b inly be taken into consideration by th by the HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 9- -9 court is the delay in con concluding the trial. Often this tak takes several years, and if th if the accused is denied bail but but is ultimately acquitted, wh d, who will restore so many years ars of his life spent in custody? tody? Is Article 21 of the Constitutio tution, which is the most basic asic of all the fundamental rights hts in our Constitution, not vi ot violated in such a case? Of cour course this is not the only fac factor, but it is certainly one of th of the important factors in de n deciding whether to grant bail. ail. In the present case the r he respondent has already spent 6 nt 66 days in custody (as st s stated in Para 2 of his counte unter- affidavit), and we see no ee no reason why he should be denie denied bail. A doctor incarcera rcerated for a long period may end u nd up like Dr. Manette in Cha Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Tw Two Cities, who forgot his his profession and even his name me in the Bastille. xxx xxx xxx 39. Coming back to t to the facts of the present case, bo , both the Courts have refused fused the request for grant of bail o ail on two grounds :- The p he primary ground is that offenc ffence alleged against the a e accused persons is very seriou erious involving deep rooted p ted planning in which, huge financi ancial loss is caused to the S the State exchequer ; the seconda ndary ground is that the po possibility of the accused person ersons tempering with the wit witnesses. In the present case, th e, the charge is that of che cheating and dishonestly inducin ucing delivery of property, fo y, forgery for the purpose of cheatin eating using as genuine a forg forged document. The punishment ent of the offence is punishme hment for a term which may extend end to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of th of the charge may be releva elevant, but at the same time, th e, the punishment to which the h the party may be liable, if convicte victed, also bears upon the i he issue. Therefore, in determinin ining whether to grant bail, b il, both the seriousness of the charg harge HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 10- -10 and the severity of the the punishment should be taken in n into consideration. 40. The grant or ref r refusal to grant bail lies within th in the discretion of the Cou Court . The grant or denial ial is regulated, to a large extent, by larg the facts an and circumstances of each ach particular case. But at the sam same time, right to bail is no is not to be denied merely because o use of the sentiments of the c the community against the accuse cused. The primary purposes oses of bail in a criminal case are are to relieve the accused of im of imprisonment, to relieve the Sta e State of the burden of keepin eeping him, pending the trial, and and at the same time, to keep eep the accused constructively in th in the custody of the Cour Court , whether before or afte after conviction, to assure sure that he will submit to th o the jurisdiction of the Cou Court and be in attendance thereo ereon whenever his presence nce is required. 41. This Court in Gu n Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. Stat State, AIR 1978 Supreme e Court 179 observed that tw t two paramount consideratio rations, while considering petition fo on for grant of bail in non on-bailable offence, apart from th m the seriousness of the off offence, are the likelihood of th of the accused fleeing from ju m justice and his tampering with th ith the prosecution witnesses. ses. Both of them relate to ensure ure of the fair trial of the cas case. Though, this aspect is dealt b alt by the High Court in its i its impugned order, in our view, th w, the ing. same is not convincing. xxx xxx xxx 46. We are conscious cious of the fact that the accused a ed are charged with economic omic offences of huge magnitude. W e. We are also conscious of th of the fact that the offences alleged, ged, if proved, may jeopardise rdise the economy of the country. A try. At the same time, we cann cannot lose sight of the fact that th at the investigating agency ha y has already completed investigatio gation and the charge sheet is et is already filed before the Speci pecial HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 11- -11 Judge, CBI, New Delhi elhi. Therefore, their presence in th in the custody may not be ne e necessary for further investigatio ation.
Decision
In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2025 18.12.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document