SOHAN SINGH RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/GST/2916/2021-Gr-K-O/o DD-DGGI/RU-Udaipur, relating to offence punishable under Ss. 132 (1)(A), (F),(H),(I),(L) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a simply Director in the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. He is behind the bars since 13/1/2022. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that in first complaint, there was not a single word regarding alleged offence against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in supplementary complaint, only allegation of the offence based on the statement of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had retracted from the statement. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Dananjay Singh Versus Union Of India in which this Court has granted bail to the Dananjay Singh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to the Vinaykant Ameta. So, as a matter of parity, petitioner be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in initial complaint, allegation was against the Vinaykant Ameta not against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent's department does not have adequate data for evasion of tax of Rs.869.00 Crores. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case against the petitioner is on surmises and conjectures. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that maximum punishment in this case is 5 years and case against the petitioner is triable by Magistrate. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent department had not seized any unaccounted bill regarding packaging of tabacco in the premises. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that they had deposited the amount of Rs.100.00 Crores and also going to deposit another amount of Rs.100.00 Crores. Offence against the petitioner is compoundable. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that provision of Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case and Department had not taken leave from concerned Court for further investigation. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:(1) Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI (Bail AppN.3771/2021 and Crl.M.A.16552/2021) decided on 26/11/2021; (2) Dananjay Singh Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18825/2021 decided on 5/2/2022; (3) Naresh Chandra Jajra Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1914/2022 decided on 25/2/2022; (4) M/s. Dhariwal Products Vs. Union of India and ors. in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2189/2022; (5) Ronak Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16083/2021 decided on 4/10/2021; (6) Lakshya Agarwal Vs. DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit and anr. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.20392/2021; (7) Shri Amit Agrawal and Anr. Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5809/2021; (8) Khekh Ram and Ors. Vs. NCB and Ors. In Criminal Appeal No.450/2016 and 38 of 2017 decided on 29/12/2017; (9) Yogesh Mittal Vs. Enforcement Directorate in bail Application No.1165/2017 decided on 16/1/2018; (10) Shobha Ram Vs. State Of U.P. reported in 1992 CRI. L.J. 1371 and (11) Yunis Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1999 CRI.L.J. 4094.