Pragya Pandey Parv Agarwal v. AND CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No

1. Applicants-Kamlesh Mishra, Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg have filed the above applications separately under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of titled Union of India, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad Regional Unit through Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Shri Kamlesh Mishra and in Case no. DGGI/INTL/3318/2024; 2 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 others, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "CGST Act, 2017"), DGGI Ghaziabad. The applicant-Kamlesh Mishra is in custody since arrest on 20.05.2025, whereas applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg were arrested on 21.5.2025.

2. The facts in brief leading to the applications are that the Director General of GST Intelligence (in short "DGGI Ghaziabad"), Regional Unit Ghaziabad instituted a complaint dated 18th July, 2025 against 28 accused persons, through Senior Intelligence Officer namely Sandeep Thapliyal, wherein it is alleged that an intelligence input regarding indulgence of Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar in arranging fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of bogus invoices without supply of underlying goods was received, and while acting upon the same, the search operation was conducted at different places on 9.10.2024 and 10.10.2024. The accused Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gourav Jain alongwith Rajat Singhal (brother of Vikrant Singhal) escaped from the premises, whereas incriminating data/documents were seized from the premises belonging to Pradeep Kumar. As per this material, the bills without supply of goods/services were arranged by Pradeep Kumar for various end-users through the other accused persons, and his statement under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 was recorded. Later, after arrest of Sachin Singhal, Vikrant Singhal and Gaurav Jain, their statements were also recorded, and they admitted that they were engaged in issuance of bills without material through various firms under their control. The statements of these persons are part of the complaint, and the secret google drive containing the entire data was being maintained by Ram Gopal alias Deepanshu, and similar is his statement, who stated that accused persons had been preparing false invoices for availing of/passing on the Input Tax Credit. A complaint dated 13th December, 2024 for prosecution of these accused persons is pending adjudication before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, and all these accused persons have been extended the concession of regular bail vide orders dated 25.2.2025 and 11.3.2025.

3. Further, the secret data maintained by Vikrant Singhal revealed that Kamlesh Mishra, Sagar Garg and Rohit Garg are key persons, who had arranged fake firms for passing on fake ITC and arranged purchase bills for the fake firms. These accused were also actively involved with Vikrant Singhal, and had passed on fake ITC without supply of concomitant goods, and a search was also conducted at their residential and business premises. Accused Kamlesh Mishra in his statement under 3 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 recorded on 19.5.2025, admitted that the name "Mishra" in the google data refers to him, who also confessed that he was involved in fake billing and had been receiving commission at the rate of 1%. As per his statement, through 66 fake firms, fraudulent ITC of Rs. 358.77 Crores had been passed on without supply of underlying goods. Similar are the statements of brothers Sagar Garg and Rohit Garg recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 on 19.5.2025 and 20.5.2025, wherein they admitted their association with Vikrant Singhal, as well as engagement in billing without material through the fake firms mentioned in the google sheet data. According to the brothers, the amount of Rs. 1.42 Crores seized from their residential premises was generated from fraudulent activity of fake billing. As per their version, through eight firms, a sum of Rs. 127 Crores was passed on as fraudulent ITC by Sagar Garg, whereas Rohit Garg through 21 firms facilitated ITC of Rs. 104.50 Crores. Broadly on these lines, the complainant seeks prosecution of the accused persons for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (l), Section 137 readwith sub-section (5) of Section 132 and Section 132(1)(i) CGST Act, 2017. A copy of the complaint/ charge sheet dated 18th July, 2025 is appended as Annexure C.A.-2 with the counter affidavit of the opposite party.

4. The accused-applicant Kamlesh Mishra had applied for grant of regular bail before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut, but the said concession was declined vide order dated 24th June, 2025, whereas the accused-applicants Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg were refused the concession of regular bail vide order(s) dated 5th July, 2025. Hence, these applications.

5. Pursuant to the advance notice, Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for Union of India-opposite party had appeared and filed his counter affidavit dated 12th August, 2025.

6. Learned counsels for applicants have argued that the allegations in the complaint dated 18th July, 2025 by Senior Intelligence Officer, CGST are against the accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar, and a complaint dated 13th December, 2024 already stands filed against them, and six others for the same offences, which is pending adjudication. Learned counsels have argued that the secret information also related to the involvement of these four named accused persons in the alleged commission of crime of availing of/passing on fake Input Tax Credit, and through the complaint dated 18th July, 2025, the applicants have been falsely implicated. Learned counsels 4 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 for the accused persons have argued that the main accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain have already been released on regular bail, therefore, the applicants also deserve the similar concession, but the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut has erroneously dismissed their applications for regular bail. According to the learned counsels, the case of the prosecution qua the applicants is on weaker foundation, as the material recovered from Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar has been relied upon to connect the applicants with the alleged crime, and even the said material does not directly connect the applicants with the crime.

7. Mr. Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant-accused Kamlesh Mishra submits that expression "Mishra" noticed by the prosecution in the complaint dated 13th December, 2024 has been relied upon to implicate the applicant-Kamlesh Mishra only on the basis of the confession of the applicant that he is the same person.

8. Similarly, Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel representing the applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg has argued that the prosecution case qua these two applicants is founded upon their confession recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017, and the recovery of money from their premises cannot be taken as a reliable evidence to even prima facie show their involvement in the commission of crime, which is attributed to other accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gaurav Jain. Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of applicant-Kamlesh Mishra recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 to point out that even he has not named the applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg, as the persons involved in the commission of crime, therefore, at least the case of these two applicants is entirely distinguishable from other accused persons.

9. Learned counsels have argued that the co-accused Pradeep Kumar is absconding, and the applicants are in custody for more than four months, and trial is yet to commence, therefore, it is prayed by them that the applicants be extended the concession of regular bail.

10. The prayer is opposed by Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for opposite party-complainant, who has argued that the entire case of the prosecution is founded upon the documentary material, and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 70 CGST Act is admissible in evidence, therefore, it is abundantly clear that the applicants were also actively involved in commission of crime with the other accused persons. 5 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 He submits that the complaint contains separate details of the amounts of fraudulent Input Tax Credit for each of the accused person, and the said details are based upon thorough investigation of the case. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel has vehemently argued that the offence is an economic offence, therefore, considering the seriousness, the applicants do not deserve the concession of bail. He prays for dismissal of the applications.

11. However, during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party-complainant that the accused Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gaurav Jain have been extended the concession of regular bail, and the case of the applicants is at par with them. Though, according to Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel the complaint against the said accused persons who are on bail is separate, and the applicants are in fact not strictly their co-accused.

12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to the complainant, the secret information was received by the prosecuting department against four persons namely Vikrant Singhat, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar, and acting upon the said information, raids were conducted leading to the recovery of incriminating material. Admittedly, the complaint bearing No. 1101 of 2024 against these accused persons except Pradeep Kumar and six others was filed on 13th December, 2024, whereas the subject complaint dated 18th July, 2025 comes as continuation of the said earlier complaint. Further, the complaint is directed against 28 accused persons including various firms, as well as their proprietors/partners, but during the course of hearing, it is stated by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party that except for the applicants, the others were not apprehended, as their arrest was not deemed to be necessary, though he also concedes that indeed accused- Pradeep Kumar is absconding.

13. Notably, the material recovered during raid conducted in response to the first intelligence input which is subject matter of complaint dated 13th December, 2024 has been relied upon by the prosecution to prosecute these applicants, coupled with their confessional statements, and no other evidence has been relied upon by the prosecuting agency. Thus, in the above background, it becomes clear that the prosecution of the applicants, and their co-accused persons in complaint dated 18.07.2025, is directly connected to the first complaint Case No. 1101 of 2024 dated 13th December, 2024. During the course of hearing, it is also fairly stated by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party-complainant 6 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 that even the trial in the complaint Case No. 1101 of 2024; titled Union of India vs. Vikrant Singhal and others has also not commenced so far, as the pre-charge evidence is yet to be completed.

14. Admittedly, the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and carry a maximum punishment of five years, and the applicants have already spent a period of more than four months in custody since their arrest. The complaint/charge sheet dated 18th July, 2025 has been filed against the accused persons, but the trial is yet to commence, as even the charges against the accused has not been framed so far, therefore, their further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.

15. Most importantly, the case of the prosecution is either founded upon the documentary evidence, or confession of the accused-applicants, and the admissibility of the said confessional statements would be tested during trial in light of the other prosecution evidence. Further, the majority of the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses, and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over.

16. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the trial, period of more than four months undergone by the applicants as an undertrial as well as the fact that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the applicants, on the ground of parity with the other accused persons who are on bail.

17. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the bail applications are allowed, and it is ordered that the applicants-Kamlesh Mishra, Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg be released on regular bail in the above case subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is further directed that the accused-applicants shall also abide by the terms and conditions of bail, which shall be imposed by the trial court at the time of acceptance of their bail bonds and surety bonds. September 23, 2025 Brijesh (Manoj Bajaj,J.) BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Applicants-Kamlesh Mishra, Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg have filed the above applications separately under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of titled Union of India, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad Regional Unit through Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Shri Kamlesh Mishra and in Case no. DGGI/INTL/3318/2024; 2 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 others, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "CGST Act, 2017"), DGGI Ghaziabad. The applicant-Kamlesh Mishra is in custody since arrest on 20.05.2025, whereas applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg were arrested on 21.5.2025.

2. The facts in brief leading to the applications are that the Director General of GST Intelligence (in short "DGGI Ghaziabad"), Regional Unit Ghaziabad instituted a complaint dated 18th July, 2025 against 28 accused persons, through Senior Intelligence Officer namely Sandeep Thapliyal, wherein it is alleged that an intelligence input regarding indulgence of Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar in arranging fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of bogus invoices without supply of underlying goods was received, and while acting upon the same, the search operation was conducted at different places on 9.10.2024 and 10.10.2024. The accused Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gourav Jain alongwith Rajat Singhal (brother of Vikrant Singhal) escaped from the premises, whereas incriminating data/documents were seized from the premises belonging to Pradeep Kumar. As per this material, the bills without supply of goods/services were arranged by Pradeep Kumar for various end-users through the other accused persons, and his statement under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 was recorded. Later, after arrest of Sachin Singhal, Vikrant Singhal and Gaurav Jain, their statements were also recorded, and they admitted that they were engaged in issuance of bills without material through various firms under their control. The statements of these persons are part of the complaint, and the secret google drive containing the entire data was being maintained by Ram Gopal alias Deepanshu, and similar is his statement, who stated that accused persons had been preparing false invoices for availing of/passing on the Input Tax Credit. A complaint dated 13th December, 2024 for prosecution of these accused persons is pending adjudication before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, and all these accused persons have been extended the concession of regular bail vide orders dated 25.2.2025 and 11.3.2025.

3. Further, the secret data maintained by Vikrant Singhal revealed that Kamlesh Mishra, Sagar Garg and Rohit Garg are key persons, who had arranged fake firms for passing on fake ITC and arranged purchase bills for the fake firms. These accused were also actively involved with Vikrant Singhal, and had passed on fake ITC without supply of concomitant goods, and a search was also conducted at their residential and business premises. Accused Kamlesh Mishra in his statement under 3 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 recorded on 19.5.2025, admitted that the name "Mishra" in the google data refers to him, who also confessed that he was involved in fake billing and had been receiving commission at the rate of 1%. As per his statement, through 66 fake firms, fraudulent ITC of Rs. 358.77 Crores had been passed on without supply of underlying goods. Similar are the statements of brothers Sagar Garg and Rohit Garg recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 on 19.5.2025 and 20.5.2025, wherein they admitted their association with Vikrant Singhal, as well as engagement in billing without material through the fake firms mentioned in the google sheet data. According to the brothers, the amount of Rs. 1.42 Crores seized from their residential premises was generated from fraudulent activity of fake billing. As per their version, through eight firms, a sum of Rs. 127 Crores was passed on as fraudulent ITC by Sagar Garg, whereas Rohit Garg through 21 firms facilitated ITC of Rs. 104.50 Crores. Broadly on these lines, the complainant seeks prosecution of the accused persons for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (l), Section 137 readwith sub-section (5) of Section 132 and Section 132(1)(i) CGST Act, 2017. A copy of the complaint/ charge sheet dated 18th July, 2025 is appended as Annexure C.A.-2 with the counter affidavit of the opposite party.

4. The accused-applicant Kamlesh Mishra had applied for grant of regular bail before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut, but the said concession was declined vide order dated 24th June, 2025, whereas the accused-applicants Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg were refused the concession of regular bail vide order(s) dated 5th July, 2025. Hence, these applications.

5. Pursuant to the advance notice, Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for Union of India-opposite party had appeared and filed his counter affidavit dated 12th August, 2025.

6. Learned counsels for applicants have argued that the allegations in the complaint dated 18th July, 2025 by Senior Intelligence Officer, CGST are against the accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar, and a complaint dated 13th December, 2024 already stands filed against them, and six others for the same offences, which is pending adjudication. Learned counsels have argued that the secret information also related to the involvement of these four named accused persons in the alleged commission of crime of availing of/passing on fake Input Tax Credit, and through the complaint dated 18th July, 2025, the applicants have been falsely implicated. Learned counsels 4 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 for the accused persons have argued that the main accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain have already been released on regular bail, therefore, the applicants also deserve the similar concession, but the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut has erroneously dismissed their applications for regular bail. According to the learned counsels, the case of the prosecution qua the applicants is on weaker foundation, as the material recovered from Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar has been relied upon to connect the applicants with the alleged crime, and even the said material does not directly connect the applicants with the crime.

7. Mr. Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant-accused Kamlesh Mishra submits that expression "Mishra" noticed by the prosecution in the complaint dated 13th December, 2024 has been relied upon to implicate the applicant-Kamlesh Mishra only on the basis of the confession of the applicant that he is the same person.

8. Similarly, Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel representing the applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg has argued that the prosecution case qua these two applicants is founded upon their confession recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017, and the recovery of money from their premises cannot be taken as a reliable evidence to even prima facie show their involvement in the commission of crime, which is attributed to other accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gaurav Jain. Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of applicant-Kamlesh Mishra recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 to point out that even he has not named the applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg, as the persons involved in the commission of crime, therefore, at least the case of these two applicants is entirely distinguishable from other accused persons.

9. Learned counsels have argued that the co-accused Pradeep Kumar is absconding, and the applicants are in custody for more than four months, and trial is yet to commence, therefore, it is prayed by them that the applicants be extended the concession of regular bail.

10. The prayer is opposed by Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for opposite party-complainant, who has argued that the entire case of the prosecution is founded upon the documentary material, and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 70 CGST Act is admissible in evidence, therefore, it is abundantly clear that the applicants were also actively involved in commission of crime with the other accused persons. 5 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 He submits that the complaint contains separate details of the amounts of fraudulent Input Tax Credit for each of the accused person, and the said details are based upon thorough investigation of the case. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel has vehemently argued that the offence is an economic offence, therefore, considering the seriousness, the applicants do not deserve the concession of bail. He prays for dismissal of the applications.

11. However, during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party-complainant that the accused Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gaurav Jain have been extended the concession of regular bail, and the case of the applicants is at par with them. Though, according to Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel the complaint against the said accused persons who are on bail is separate, and the applicants are in fact not strictly their co-accused.

12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to the complainant, the secret information was received by the prosecuting department against four persons namely Vikrant Singhat, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar, and acting upon the said information, raids were conducted leading to the recovery of incriminating material. Admittedly, the complaint bearing No. 1101 of 2024 against these accused persons except Pradeep Kumar and six others was filed on 13th December, 2024, whereas the subject complaint dated 18th July, 2025 comes as continuation of the said earlier complaint. Further, the complaint is directed against 28 accused persons including various firms, as well as their proprietors/partners, but during the course of hearing, it is stated by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party that except for the applicants, the others were not apprehended, as their arrest was not deemed to be necessary, though he also concedes that indeed accused- Pradeep Kumar is absconding.

13. Notably, the material recovered during raid conducted in response to the first intelligence input which is subject matter of complaint dated 13th December, 2024 has been relied upon by the prosecution to prosecute these applicants, coupled with their confessional statements, and no other evidence has been relied upon by the prosecuting agency. Thus, in the above background, it becomes clear that the prosecution of the applicants, and their co-accused persons in complaint dated 18.07.2025, is directly connected to the first complaint Case No. 1101 of 2024 dated 13th December, 2024. During the course of hearing, it is also fairly stated by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party-complainant 6 BAIL No. 24265 of 2025 that even the trial in the complaint Case No. 1101 of 2024; titled Union of India vs. Vikrant Singhal and others has also not commenced so far, as the pre-charge evidence is yet to be completed.

14. Admittedly, the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and carry a maximum punishment of five years, and the applicants have already spent a period of more than four months in custody since their arrest. The complaint/charge sheet dated 18th July, 2025 has been filed against the accused persons, but the trial is yet to commence, as even the charges against the accused has not been framed so far, therefore, their further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.

15. Most importantly, the case of the prosecution is either founded upon the documentary evidence, or confession of the accused-applicants, and the admissibility of the said confessional statements would be tested during trial in light of the other prosecution evidence. Further, the majority of the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses, and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over.

16. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the trial, period of more than four months undergone by the applicants as an undertrial as well as the fact that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the applicants, on the ground of parity with the other accused persons who are on bail.

17. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the bail applications are allowed, and it is ordered that the applicants-Kamlesh Mishra, Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg be released on regular bail in the above case subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is further directed that the accused-applicants shall also abide by the terms and conditions of bail, which shall be imposed by the trial court at the time of acceptance of their bail bonds and surety bonds. September 23, 2025 Brijesh (Manoj Bajaj,J.) BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad