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

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit and Bhuwan Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for DGGI.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case No. 790 of 2025, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) CGST Act, P.S. DGGI, Meerut, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation applicant was Chartered Accountant and he facilitated the co-accused Sagar Singhal who was a businessman and with the help of applicant, co-accused firstly availed input tax credit and subsequently passed on the same in the tune of more than Rs. 100 crores on the basis of fake documents but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that even all the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years.

6. He further submitted that investigation of the present case has been completed and complaint has been filed and after complaint further detention of the applicant in the present matter is not required.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail since 6.8.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

8. He further submitted that even from the complaint it reflects that co-accused Sagar Singhal is the principal accused. 2 BAIL No. 34005 of 2025

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

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of DGGI opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant and other accused by way of forged documents firstly availed Input Tax Credit in the tune of more than Rs. 100 crore and subsequently passed the same but could not dispute the fact that investigation of the present case has been completed and complaint has been filed.

11.He further could not dispute the fact that all the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Sagar Singhal is the principal accused and applicant is not having previous criminal history to his credit.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant who is Chartered Accountant facilitated the co-accused Sagar Singhal and with his help co-accused Sagar Singhal on the basis of forged documents availed Input tax credit of about Rs. 100 crores and subsequently passed the same but it reflects all the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years.

15.Further, even from the complaint filed by complainant it reflects that principal accused in the case is co-accused Sagar Singhal.

16. Further, investigation of the case has been filed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail since

6.8.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

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. Further, considering the fact that entire prosecution case is based on documentary 3 BAIL No. 34005 of 2025 evidence, it appears, there is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial of the case. 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 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. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the observation made by the Apex Court in the above cases, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

22. Let the applicant-Ayush Agarwal, 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 4 BAIL No. 34005 of 2025 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 14, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit and Bhuwan Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for DGGI.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case No. 790 of 2025, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) CGST Act, P.S. DGGI, Meerut, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation applicant was Chartered Accountant and he facilitated the co-accused Sagar Singhal who was a businessman and with the help of applicant, co-accused firstly availed input tax credit and subsequently passed on the same in the tune of more than Rs. 100 crores on the basis of fake documents but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that even all the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years.

6. He further submitted that investigation of the present case has been completed and complaint has been filed and after complaint further detention of the applicant in the present matter is not required.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail since 6.8.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

8. He further submitted that even from the complaint it reflects that co-accused Sagar Singhal is the principal accused. 2 BAIL No. 34005 of 2025

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

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of DGGI opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant and other accused by way of forged documents firstly availed Input Tax Credit in the tune of more than Rs. 100 crore and subsequently passed the same but could not dispute the fact that investigation of the present case has been completed and complaint has been filed.

11.He further could not dispute the fact that all the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Sagar Singhal is the principal accused and applicant is not having previous criminal history to his credit.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant who is Chartered Accountant facilitated the co-accused Sagar Singhal and with his help co-accused Sagar Singhal on the basis of forged documents availed Input tax credit of about Rs. 100 crores and subsequently passed the same but it reflects all the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years.

15.Further, even from the complaint filed by complainant it reflects that principal accused in the case is co-accused Sagar Singhal.

16. Further, investigation of the case has been filed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail since

6.8.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

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. Further, considering the fact that entire prosecution case is based on documentary 3 BAIL No. 34005 of 2025 evidence, it appears, there is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial of the case. 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 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. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the observation made by the Apex Court in the above cases, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

22. Let the applicant-Ayush Agarwal, 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 4 BAIL No. 34005 of 2025 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 14, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad