The Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain v. Union of India, MANU/SCOR/

2. Heard Sri Udit Chandra alongwith Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for G.S.T. Department.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 135/2023 of 2022, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) & 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, Police Station CGST Commissionrate, District Gautambudh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation applicant through input tax credit committed the tax evasion of more than Rs. Twenty Crores but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that after investigation GST department has submitted the complaint and after complaint further detention of the applicant in the present matter is not required.

6. He further submitted that even for the alleged offences maximum five years punishment is provided and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 13.6.2025 i.e. for last four months. 2 BAIL No. 29377 of 2025

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

8. He further submitted that considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of G.S.T. Department vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant by playing fraud committed huge tax evasion and he committed the tax evasion of more than twenty crores but could not dispute the fact that maximum punishment provided for the alleged offences is five years and investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last four months and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the offences of tax evasion and he committed the tax evasion of more than Rs. Twenty crores but it reflects investigation of the case has already been completed and complaint has been filed against him.

12. Further, for the alleged offences maximum punishment of five years have been provided and offences are triable by Magistrate.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, MANU/SCOR/38321/2025 observed as follows:- "......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......" 3 BAIL No. 29377 of 2025

14. Further considering the fact that entire case of GST is based on documentary evidence, therefore, considerable period of time will be consumed in deciding the trial, Apex Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India 2023 (2) SCC 671 in paragraph-8 observed as follows:- "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 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."

15. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, in paragraph-46 observed as follows:- "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." (emphasis supplied) 4 BAIL No. 29377 of 2025

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above noted cases, in view of this Court, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

18. Let the applicant- Azharuddin, 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 7, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Udit Chandra alongwith Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for G.S.T. Department.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 135/2023 of 2022, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) & 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, Police Station CGST Commissionrate, District Gautambudh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation applicant through input tax credit committed the tax evasion of more than Rs. Twenty Crores but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that after investigation GST department has submitted the complaint and after complaint further detention of the applicant in the present matter is not required.

6. He further submitted that even for the alleged offences maximum five years punishment is provided and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 13.6.2025 i.e. for last four months. 2 BAIL No. 29377 of 2025

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

8. He further submitted that considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of G.S.T. Department vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant by playing fraud committed huge tax evasion and he committed the tax evasion of more than twenty crores but could not dispute the fact that maximum punishment provided for the alleged offences is five years and investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last four months and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the offences of tax evasion and he committed the tax evasion of more than Rs. Twenty crores but it reflects investigation of the case has already been completed and complaint has been filed against him.

12. Further, for the alleged offences maximum punishment of five years have been provided and offences are triable by Magistrate.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, MANU/SCOR/38321/2025 observed as follows:- "......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......" 3 BAIL No. 29377 of 2025

14. Further considering the fact that entire case of GST is based on documentary evidence, therefore, considerable period of time will be consumed in deciding the trial, Apex Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India 2023 (2) SCC 671 in paragraph-8 observed as follows:- "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 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."

15. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, in paragraph-46 observed as follows:- "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." (emphasis supplied) 4 BAIL No. 29377 of 2025

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above noted cases, in view of this Court, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

18. Let the applicant- Azharuddin, 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 7, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad