Union of India v. Party

learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dananjay Awasthi assisted by Sri Lakshya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CGST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to mistake applicant could not implead Directorate General of GST Intelligence, CGST Commissionerate Anti Evasion Ghaziabad through his Director as one of the opposite party, therefore, he filed instant Impleadment Application and therefore, Impleadment application filed by the applicant may be allowed and applicant may be permitted to implead Directorate General of GST Intelligence as one of the opposite party during the course of day itself.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of CGST is having no objection.

4. In view of the above, instant impleadment application stands allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Directorate General Intelligence, CGST Commissionerate as one of the party during the course of the day itself. Order on Bail Application-

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025

2. Heard Sri M.K. Madan, Advocate holding brief Sri Sandeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dananjay Awasthi assisted by Sri Lakshya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CGST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad.

3. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to released the applicant on bail in case No. 1542 of 2025 under section 132(1)(b), (c) & (i) of CGST Act, 2017 at Department CGST, Distrct Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial of the case.

4. learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Consultant of M/s. Marvel Impex and as per allegation M/s. Marvel Impex received ineligible Input Tax Credit on the basis of fake firms and applicant was the person who applied for said refund application.

5. He further submitted that entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

6. He further submitted that even all the alleged offences are tribale by magistrate punishable with maximum punishment of five years.

7. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been completed and complaint has been filed and therefore, further detention of the applicant is not required.

8. He further submitted that even from the material available on record, it reflects that entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence and therefore, there is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial.

9. He further submitted that applicant is detained in jail in the present matter since 30.7.2025 i.e. for last more than three months and apart from the present case, he is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CGST commissionerate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant alongwith M/s. Marvel Impex committed fraud of about Rs. Thirty-five crores through fake firms and applicant was the consultant of M/s. Marvel Impex and he was the person who applied refund application and on his application M/s. Marvel Impex received ineligible Input Tax Credit but he could not dispute the fact that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate punishable with maximum punishment of five years. 3 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025

11. Learned counsel for the CGST could also not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and complaint has been filed and case of the prosecution is entirely based on documentary evidence.

12. He also could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail since 30.7.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

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

14. However, as per allegation M/s. Marvel Impex received ineligible Input Tax Credit of more than Rs. Thirty crores on the basis of fake firms and applicant was the Consultant of M/s. Marvel Impex and he was the person who applied for refund but all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate punishable with maximum punishment of five years.

15. Further, investigation of the case has been concluded and complaint has been filed. Further, considering the fact that entire prosecution case, prima facie, appears to be based on documentary evidence, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that trial of the case will take considerable period of time.

16. Further as complaint has already been filed, therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that further detention of the applicant is not required cannot be brushed aside.

17. Further applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 30.7.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

18. 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 4 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025 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."

19. Further, 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."

20. Further, 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 5 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025 where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances......"

21. Therefore, from the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Vineet Jain (supra) it reflects, ordinarily an accused should be released on bail for offence under Section 132(1) C.G.S.T. Act.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the observations made by Apex Court in the above judgments, in my view, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

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

24. Let the applicant-Deepak Kumar, 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.

25. 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.

26. 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. November 4, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dananjay Awasthi assisted by Sri Lakshya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CGST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to mistake applicant could not implead Directorate General of GST Intelligence, CGST Commissionerate Anti Evasion Ghaziabad through his Director as one of the opposite party, therefore, he filed instant Impleadment Application and therefore, Impleadment application filed by the applicant may be allowed and applicant may be permitted to implead Directorate General of GST Intelligence as one of the opposite party during the course of day itself.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of CGST is having no objection.

4. In view of the above, instant impleadment application stands allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Directorate General Intelligence, CGST Commissionerate as one of the party during the course of the day itself. Order on Bail Application-

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025

2. Heard Sri M.K. Madan, Advocate holding brief Sri Sandeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dananjay Awasthi assisted by Sri Lakshya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CGST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad.

3. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to released the applicant on bail in case No. 1542 of 2025 under section 132(1)(b), (c) & (i) of CGST Act, 2017 at Department CGST, Distrct Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial of the case.

4. learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Consultant of M/s. Marvel Impex and as per allegation M/s. Marvel Impex received ineligible Input Tax Credit on the basis of fake firms and applicant was the person who applied for said refund application.

5. He further submitted that entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

6. He further submitted that even all the alleged offences are tribale by magistrate punishable with maximum punishment of five years.

7. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been completed and complaint has been filed and therefore, further detention of the applicant is not required.

8. He further submitted that even from the material available on record, it reflects that entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence and therefore, there is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial.

9. He further submitted that applicant is detained in jail in the present matter since 30.7.2025 i.e. for last more than three months and apart from the present case, he is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CGST commissionerate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant alongwith M/s. Marvel Impex committed fraud of about Rs. Thirty-five crores through fake firms and applicant was the consultant of M/s. Marvel Impex and he was the person who applied refund application and on his application M/s. Marvel Impex received ineligible Input Tax Credit but he could not dispute the fact that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate punishable with maximum punishment of five years. 3 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025

11. Learned counsel for the CGST could also not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and complaint has been filed and case of the prosecution is entirely based on documentary evidence.

12. He also could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail since 30.7.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

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

14. However, as per allegation M/s. Marvel Impex received ineligible Input Tax Credit of more than Rs. Thirty crores on the basis of fake firms and applicant was the Consultant of M/s. Marvel Impex and he was the person who applied for refund but all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate punishable with maximum punishment of five years.

15. Further, investigation of the case has been concluded and complaint has been filed. Further, considering the fact that entire prosecution case, prima facie, appears to be based on documentary evidence, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that trial of the case will take considerable period of time.

16. Further as complaint has already been filed, therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that further detention of the applicant is not required cannot be brushed aside.

17. Further applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 30.7.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

18. 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 4 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025 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."

19. Further, 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."

20. Further, 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 5 BAIL No. 33156 of 2025 where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances......"

21. Therefore, from the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Vineet Jain (supra) it reflects, ordinarily an accused should be released on bail for offence under Section 132(1) C.G.S.T. Act.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the observations made by Apex Court in the above judgments, in my view, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

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

24. Let the applicant-Deepak Kumar, 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.

25. 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.

26. 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. November 4, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad