In Central Jail Jaipur) v. Union Of India, Through Directorate Of Gst Intelligence

Judgment

1. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner who has been

arrested in connection with FIR No.DGGI/INT/ARM/5/2024-0/O ADG/DGGI/JZU-JAIPUR dated 03.06.2024 registered at office of DGGI, JZU, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 132(1) (b)(c)(f) and (l) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 .

2. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Amar Kumar, Shri Dinesh Bishnoi and Ms. Savita Nathawat for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024] in this case. He submits that the alleged offences are triable by magistrate, for which, maximum punishment is five years. Complaint was filed in the court concerned on 31.07.2024 and presently the case is pending for recording pre-charge evidence and till date only one witness has been examined out of ten cited prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is in custody since

23.06.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion.

3. It is contended by learned senior counsel that as per the case set up against the petitioner, two firms namely M/s Om Sai Traders and Suppliers and M/s Suraj Trading Company were initially suspected by the Department as there were huge amount of credit and debit transactions being done in their Bank Accounts in a short span of 1-2 years. During investigation, data pertaining to firm Suraj Trading Company was retrieved from GSTIN portal and a Rent Agreement was found uploaded on the portal for taking GST registration. Mr. Vivek Garg S/o Shri Chhabil Das Garg was one of the witness of the said rent agreement. Suraj Kumar was found to be the proprietor of Suraj Trading Company and Sharad Kumar was found to be the proprietor of M/s Om Sai Traders & Suppliers. Statement of Shri Vivek Garg was recorded under Summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act 2017 wherein he stated that he works for Shri Rajesh Goyal, petitioner herein and Shr Ankit Bansal and he had registered both these firms under GST on the KYC of his relatives, on the direction of Shri Ankit Bansal and Shri Rajesh Goyal, just to give passage to money circulation of fake GST firms and that Ankit Bansal and Shri Rajesh Goyal, petitioner herein are the masterminds of the syndicate. [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024]

4. Shri Bajwa argues that none of person on whose name firms was registered has been made witness in this case. These two main firms were initially subjected to closer scrutiny on account of huge transaction in their bank accounts but neither the proprietors of the two firms have been made accused nor they are included in the list of the prosecution witnesses despite the fact that they have admitted their connivance in the tax evasion process and they were available to the investigating agency.

5. The petitioner has been made accused only on the basis of the statement of one Vivek Garg wherein he stated that he works for Rajesh Goyal and Shri Ankit Bansal. Apart from the statements of some witnesses namely Vivek Garg, Ankit Bansal who appears to be the principal accused, no incriminating material is available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged crime. It is also argued that no incriminating material/evidence has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Rather recovery has been made from the office of the co-accused Ankit Bansal, who is allegedly partner of the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel submits has placed reliance upon recent order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Jindal v. State of UP (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.13548-13550/2024. He submits that in the said order, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in absence of any antecedents, there is no reason to deny bail to an accused in a case triable by magistrate. Reliance has also been placed on the following judgments:-

1. Ashutosh Garg versus Union of India : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s.) 8740/2024 [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024]

2. Ratnambar Kaushik versus Union of India: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10319/2022

3. Pankaj Aggarwal versus Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8451/2024, decided on 25.09.2024)

4. Rishabh Jain vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10718/2023, decided on 04.12.2023)

6. With these submissions, he craves indulgence of bail for the accused petitioner.

7. Per contra, Shri Akshay Bhardwaj and Shri Rajat Sharma, learned counsel representing UOI has vehemently opposed the bail application. He submits that evasion of tax not only affects the economy of State but also causes a serious threat to the nation. The petitioner wrongly claimed input tax credit (ITC) of crores of rupees. It is argued that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that in order to avail ITC, 351 fake firms were formed by the petitioner and co-accused. However, during course of argument, he fairly concedes that proprietors of the aforesaid two firms are prima facie involved in this scam but till date, neither they have been arrested in this case nor they have been proposed as witnesses and investigation is still going on. He draws attention of the Court towards the role of the petitioner, came out during investigation and submits that the petitioner was involved in creation of at least 351 fake/non-existing firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on the basis of supply of goods-less invoices. The petitioner issued invoices or bills without supply of underlying goods/services from 351 fake/non-existing firms passing on fake ITC of Rs. 704 Crores to various beneficiaries. The petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024] admitted that there was no supply of goods to his fake firms and he availed fake ITC in these fake firms. The petitioner was found involved in creating forged documents I.e.Aadhar Card, PAN Card etc of persons and creating fake firms as evident from the records resumed at the premise of Shri Ankit Bansal. Shri Bhardwaj thus, prays that considering the role attributed to the accused petitioner, bail should not be granted to him. He places reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. State of Tamil Nadu versus R. Vasanthi Stanley & Anr. : (2016) 1 SCC 376

4. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Versus CBI : (2013) 7 SCC 439 Nimmagadda Prasad Versus CBI : (2013) 7 SCC 466 Lalit Goyal vs Union of India : S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.5702/2023, decided on 05.07.2023

5. Bharat Raj Punj & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax Department, Jaipur & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ No.76/2019, decided on 12.03.2019)

8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and perused the material available on record.

9. The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. 10 The expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person and [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024] some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person by incarceration or otherwise. The concept of "right to life and personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the "right to live with dignity" and it does not mean mere animal like existence of life. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Article 21 of the Constitution now protects the right of life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action but from the legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of the judgments that prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of rights of an accused and the court should step in to protect him and no provision can take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. Prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail in the Indian judiciary system, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial. The right to liberty under Article 21 is a critical consideration, and courts should incline to grant bail to prevent undue hardship particularly when prosecution is not showing promptness in producing witnesses. However, the nature of the [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024] offence, potential risks associated with releasing the accused, and the overall context of the case must be carefully evaluated.

12. In a case, before Hon'ble Supreme Court, Masroor v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (14) SCC 286 , Hon’ble Supreme Court beautified that there should be a balancing approach between personal liberty of the accused and interest of public and a case of prosecution.

13. While it is true that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of the Society. No right can be absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time. The court has also to take into consideration the other facts and circumstances such as the interest of the society. In the present case, it is apparent from the record that petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2024 and complaint was filed on 31.07.2024 and cognizance was taken in January, 2025 and presently case is pending for recording pre-charge evidence and only one witness has been examined in pre-charge evidence out of 10 cited prosecution witnesses. Thus, trial will take considerable time in its conclusion.

14. It is also opposite to mention here that none of person on whose name firms was registered has been made witness in this case. Two main firms were initially subjected to closer scrutiny on account of huge transaction in their bank account but their proprietors neither have been made accused nor are they [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024] prosecution witnesses despite the fact that they have admitted their connivance in the tax evasion process and they were available to the investigating agency. It is also undisputed fact that maximum sentence in case of conviction is 5 years and trial is going on snail pace and there are bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future and court should not lose the sight that conviction rate is low in trial of GST/ PMLA offences. For deciding bail application, maximum period of punishment of the alleged offence and period of incarceration suffered by an undertrial prisoner are always relevant consideration.

15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, as also the fact that the alleged offences are triable by magistrate, complaint has been filed against the petitioner in the court concerned on 31.07.2024 and trial will take time in its conclusion as till date only one witness out of ten cited witnesses has been examined in pre-charge evidence; investigation is still going on; till date, proprietors of the aforestated two main firms in whose bank accounts, suspicious transactions were initially made are neither arrested nor they have been proposed as witness in the list of witnesses; he is in custody since June, 2024 and trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

16. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Rajesh Goyal S/o Shri Jai Prakash shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum [2025:RJ-JP:13218] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-16113/2024] of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

17. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. GAUTAM JAIN /733 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN ), J