Further, the cases of Vishal Agarwal Vs. Union of India in vs Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the

: Mr. Akshay Singh Mr. Rajendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, P.P. Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Dy. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA (V. J.) Judgment / Order 18/06/2025

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with complaint No.AC/A/EW-III/A-1/Jaipur/2024-25/235 registered for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(C) read with Section 132(1)(I) & 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax (RGST) Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act,

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.01.2025 and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner on

01.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that maximum punishment which can be awarded is five years. He [2025:RJ-JP:23340] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3302/2025] relies upon the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India in Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025, wherein it has been held as under: “The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances. By setting aside the impugned order dated 24th January, 2025 of the High court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, we grant bail to the appellant. The appellant shall be immediately produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall enlarge him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the conclusion of the trial.” Further, the cases of Vishal Agarwal Vs. Union of India in Special Leave Petition No.13644/2024 & Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India in Special Leave Petition No.8740/2024 and Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 621 were relied upon.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the witnesses are official witnesses and there is no possibility of influencing the witnesses during the course of the trial. He further submits that looking to the bulky charge-sheet, the trial of the [2025:RJ-JP:23340] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3302/2025] case will take considerable time, therefore, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose, so, the petitioner may be released on bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is involved in fraudulently availing and utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth 6.27 crores without actual receipt of goods. He further submits that there is possibility of flight risk if the petitioner is released on bail. He further submits that tax evasion in the present case amounts to 6.27 Crores, therefore, the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Jain (supra), Vishal Agarwal (supra), Ashutosh Garg (supra) & Ratnambar Kaushik (supra) and considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since

02.01.2025, and that the charge-sheet has been filed on

01.03.2025; even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132, the punishment provided is imprisonment which may extend to five years with fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration of almost five and half months and completion of trial in any event, would take some time. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent [2025:RJ-JP:23340] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3302/2025] would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. The trial of the case may take considerable time, thus, without commenting any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Mohammad Rahis S/o Munna Pehlwan shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. That apart, the petitioner shall also follow the conditions as under: (i). He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (ii). He shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court. (iii). He will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iv). He will not influence any witnesses. (v). He will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court, to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi). In case, the above conditions are not complied by the petitioner, thus the respondent prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation of this bail application. DANISH USMANI /63 (MANEESH SHARMA (V. J.)),J