Counsel for v. Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Singh Chauhan

1. Heard Sri S.P. Mishra Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the CGST, Ghaziabad.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case No. 696 of 2024, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the instant matter relates to provisions of CGST and as per allegation, applicant by way of fake input tax credit committed fraud of about Rs. 185 crores but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation, applicant by way of forming shell companies committed the offence of fraud and cheating under the provisions of GST but entire allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false and applicant never formed any shell company as alleged.

5. He further submitted that even for the alleged offences maximum punishment is five years and investigation of the case has been completed and complaint has been filed and trial of the case is pending which is at initial stage and till, date no prosecution witness could be examined.

6. He further submitted that entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and therefore, there is no hope of its early disposal.

7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 17.10.2024 i.e. for last one year.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the CGST opposed the prayer for bail and submitted 2 BAIL No. 2086 of 2025 that applicant is a dishonest citizen of this Country and he by illegal means firstly formed number of shell companies and thereafter by way of these shell companies he availed input tax credits of more than Rs. 180 crores and therefore, allegations levelled against the applicant are quite serious.

9. He further submitted that however, maximum punishment in the present matter is five years but considering the nature of allegation and impact of the offence committed by the applicant on the society merely on this ground he should not be released on bail.

10. He further submitted that law is by far now settled that economic offences are a class apart and therefore, these offences should be treated differently and general principle of bail should not be applied in such matters.

11. He however could not dispute the fact that it is a case in which maximum punishment for the alleged offence is five years and applicant is in jail for last one year and however, investigation of the case has been completed and complaint has been filed way back in the year 2024 but till then, not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation applicant is a business man and he firstly formed number of shell companies with intention to commit fraud and thereafter by way of fake input tax credit, he availed and passed on more than Rs. 180 crores but in the instant matter after investigation complaint has been filed and applicant is in jail for last one year and for the alleged offence maximum punishment is five years.

15. The Apex Court in case of Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India 2023 (2) SCC 671 enlarged the accused on bail considering the facts that prosecution case is based on documentary and electronic evidence and investigation has been completed and accused is in jail for four months and in paragraph no.8 the Apex Court observed as:- "8. In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be 3 BAIL No. 2086 of 2025 tendered by the respondent 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. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner."

16. The Apex Court in case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 in paragraph no. 46 observed as:- "46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

17. The Apex Court recently in the case of Vineet Jain vs. Union of India MANU/SCOR/38321/2025 while granting bail to accused under the provisions of C.G.S.T. Act observed as:- "......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 period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by 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......"

18. Therefore, it appears, however, economic offences are a class apart but merely on this ground in the matter like present one bail application should not be dismissed by ignoring the one year long incarceration of the applicant considering the fact that for the alleged offences maximum punishment is five years and offences are triable by Magistrate and trial is at initial stage.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4 BAIL No. 2086 of 2025

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Chhatar Pal Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 8, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri S.P. Mishra Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the CGST, Ghaziabad.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case No. 696 of 2024, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the instant matter relates to provisions of CGST and as per allegation, applicant by way of fake input tax credit committed fraud of about Rs. 185 crores but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation, applicant by way of forming shell companies committed the offence of fraud and cheating under the provisions of GST but entire allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false and applicant never formed any shell company as alleged.

5. He further submitted that even for the alleged offences maximum punishment is five years and investigation of the case has been completed and complaint has been filed and trial of the case is pending which is at initial stage and till, date no prosecution witness could be examined.

6. He further submitted that entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and therefore, there is no hope of its early disposal.

7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 17.10.2024 i.e. for last one year.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the CGST opposed the prayer for bail and submitted 2 BAIL No. 2086 of 2025 that applicant is a dishonest citizen of this Country and he by illegal means firstly formed number of shell companies and thereafter by way of these shell companies he availed input tax credits of more than Rs. 180 crores and therefore, allegations levelled against the applicant are quite serious.

9. He further submitted that however, maximum punishment in the present matter is five years but considering the nature of allegation and impact of the offence committed by the applicant on the society merely on this ground he should not be released on bail.

10. He further submitted that law is by far now settled that economic offences are a class apart and therefore, these offences should be treated differently and general principle of bail should not be applied in such matters.

11. He however could not dispute the fact that it is a case in which maximum punishment for the alleged offence is five years and applicant is in jail for last one year and however, investigation of the case has been completed and complaint has been filed way back in the year 2024 but till then, not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation applicant is a business man and he firstly formed number of shell companies with intention to commit fraud and thereafter by way of fake input tax credit, he availed and passed on more than Rs. 180 crores but in the instant matter after investigation complaint has been filed and applicant is in jail for last one year and for the alleged offence maximum punishment is five years.

15. The Apex Court in case of Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India 2023 (2) SCC 671 enlarged the accused on bail considering the facts that prosecution case is based on documentary and electronic evidence and investigation has been completed and accused is in jail for four months and in paragraph no.8 the Apex Court observed as:- "8. In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be 3 BAIL No. 2086 of 2025 tendered by the respondent 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. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner."

16. The Apex Court in case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 in paragraph no. 46 observed as:- "46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

17. The Apex Court recently in the case of Vineet Jain vs. Union of India MANU/SCOR/38321/2025 while granting bail to accused under the provisions of C.G.S.T. Act observed as:- "......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 period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by 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......"

18. Therefore, it appears, however, economic offences are a class apart but merely on this ground in the matter like present one bail application should not be dismissed by ignoring the one year long incarceration of the applicant considering the fact that for the alleged offences maximum punishment is five years and offences are triable by Magistrate and trial is at initial stage.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4 BAIL No. 2086 of 2025

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Chhatar Pal Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 8, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad