HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7605/2019 Mohit Vijay S/o Jeevan Lal Vijay, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Plot No. 41, Raghunath Vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through P.p. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7642/2019 Kapil Vijay@kapil Vijayavargiya S/o Shri Ram Kalyan Vijay, Aged About 29 Years, R/o A-4, Shree Ganesh Vihar, Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddarth Ranka HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order 02/06/2020 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Criminal Complaint filed at Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur (Raj.) for offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. Heard learned counsel for parties. (Downloaded on 30/04/2021 at 11:16:42 AM) (2 of 7) [CRLMB-7605/2019] 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that co-accused petitioners were arrested on 1 st March, 2019 and complaint has been filed in Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur for offence under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. After having conducted investigation as against accused petitioners, documents have already been seized and have been placed before concerned Court. Learned counsel has invited attention of this Court to list of documents and description, which are in all 87 in number. Learned counsel submits that allegation against petitioners is of having issued invoices giving benefit to companies who availed benefit of of ITC (Input Tax Credit). list of said companies have been mentioned in complaint which are 36 in number. However, no action has been taken as against concerned persons of said companies. Learned counsel submits that no further investigation is required to be conducted as against accused petitioners and they are in judicial custody since long. Learned counsel submits that under CGST Act, case is compoundable and maximum punishment which can be awarded is only five years. petitioners have already remained in jail for last 450 days. Learned counsel also submits that in reply filed by respondents, it has been stated that they are conducting investigation against more than 1300 beneficiaries, which is likely to take long time. 4. Learned counsel further submits that in view of COVID- 19 Pandemic, petitioners be released on bail with certain conditions. 5. Learned counsel relies on judgment in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (Downloaded on 30/04/2021 at 11:16:42 AM) (3 of 7) [CRLMB-7605/2019] 2012 (1) SCC 40 as well as order passed by Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in case of Gaurav Maheshwari Vs. State(S.B.Criminal Misc.IInd Bail Application No.1825/2020) decided on 11.5.2020 and Gaurav Maheshwari Vs. State(S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1422/2020) decided on 13.5.2020 submits that petitioner may be given similar benefit and similar conditions may be laid down, which petitioners will abide. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Revenue strongly opposes bail application and submits that petitioners have committed huge economic offence and huge amount of CGST has been evaded resulting huge loss of revenue since fraudulent and forged invoices were issued in relation to 34 companies, petitioners created ghost companies which were fraudulent and created only for purpose of issuing such invoices resulted in giving benefit to as many as 1878 customers in different 21 states. Learned counsel submits that out of said customers, 321 customers are those who are residing outside Rajasthan. 7. Learned counsel submit that Revenue Department has recovered Rs. 30 crore from such customers, who wrongly availed of benefit of ITC. Learned counsel submits that as regards case being registered against said beneficiaries since provisions is only where benefit has been wrongfully obtained from more than 5 crore and otherwise case is bailable. department in process of conducting further investigation in regard to others. On being asked by this Court with regard to any particular investigation, which is pending as against accused petitioners, learned counsel frankly states (Downloaded on 30/04/2021 at 11:16:42 AM) (4 of 7) [CRLMB-7605/2019] that there is no such investigation as against accused petitioners, who are in judicial custody. However, he says that they are likely to cause interference in fruther investigation and may effect material witnesses and therefore, prays that they should not been released on bail. 8. Learned counsel also relies on one another judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in relation of Rajesh Arora Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.3987/2020) decided on 26th May, 2020 where Court in similar circumstances had refused to grant indulgence of bail to petitioner, who was in jail since 3rd August, 2018. 9. I have considered submissions as noticed above and perused material available on record as well as judgments as noticed above. 10. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), Apex Court has observed as under: 40. grant or refusal to grant bail lies within discretion of Court. grant or denial is regulated, to large extent, by facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of community against accused. primary purposes of bail in criminal case are to relieve accused of imprisonment, to relieve State of burden of keeping him, pending trial, and at same time, to keep accused constructively in custody of Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to jurisdiction of Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 46. We are conscious of fact that accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of fact that offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize economy of country. At same time, we cannot (Downloaded on 30/04/2021 at 11:16:42 AM) (5 of 7) [CRLMB-7605/2019] lose sight of fact that investigating agency has already completed investigation and charge sheet is already filed before Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of view that appellants are entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally apprehension expressed by CBI. 47. In view we have taken, it may not be necessary to refer and discuss other issues canvassed by learned counsel for parties and case laws relied on in support of their respective contentions. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding other legal issues canvassed by learned counsel for parties. 48. In result, we order that appellants be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties, each in sum of `5 lakhs to satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on following conditions :- a. appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts or case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to Court or to any other authority. b. They shall remain present before Court on dates fixed for hearing of case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to appropriate court and also to Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through counsel. c. They will not dispute their identity as accused in case. d. They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not holder of same, they shall swear to affidavit. If they have already surrendered before Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by affidavit. e. We reserve liberty to CBI to make appropriate application for modification/recalling order passed by us, if for any reason, appellants violate any of conditions imposed by this Court. (Downloaded on 30/04/2021 at 11:16:42 AM) (6 of 7) [CRLMB-7605/2019] 11. Coming to facts of present case, this Court notices that complaint has already been filed with complete details before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, who is ceased with matter and trial has commenced. witnesses are in huge number and trial is likely to take time. No further documents are required to be produced apart from any other document, which may be required subsequently. petitioners cannot be said to be required for any further investigation and no recovery is required to be effected against them and their account has also been seized. 12. recovery, which is required to be made as against accused petitioners, is under provisions of GST Act, which are not part of criminal case. 13. apprehension of learned counsel to effect that petitioners would be in able to effect and threaten witnesses, is not made out as there is no such statement placed on record where witness has been taken before concerned Court of having been threaten. 14. This Court also notices that offence alleged against accused petitioners is compoundable. However, no process for compounding offence has been undertaken by either of party. However, learned counsel submits that as petitioners are behind bars, no proceeding for compounding offence could be taken. 15. Keeping in view that petitioners are already in jail for 450 days and no further investigation or recovery is to be made for purpose of case(supra)and keeping in view law laid down by Apex Court as well as by this Court as noticed above, (Downloaded on 30/04/2021 at 11:16:42 AM) (7 of 7) [CRLMB-7605/2019] I am inclined to release petitioners on bail with conditions as laid down by Apex Court as noted above. 16. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of case, but without commenting on merits of case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge petitioners subject to submitting bail bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with one surety of like amount subject to following conditions. a. appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts or case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to Court or to any other authority. b. They shall remain present before Court on dates fixed for hearing of case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to appropriate court and also to Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through counsel. c. They will not dispute their identity as accused in case. d. They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not holder of same, they shall swear to affidavit. If they have already surrendered before Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by affidavit. e. We reserve liberty to CBI to make appropriate application for modification/recalling order passed by us, if for any reason, appellants violate any of conditions imposed by this Court. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Anu /397/ (Downloaded on 30/04/2021 at 11:16:42 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Mohit Vijay v. Union Of India