Manish Kumar v. Director General of Gst Intelligence

229 INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHo 1) oooooo oooooCRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) Dateoofodecision:o28.07.2025 ManishoKumaro oooooooooooooooooooooooo....Petitioner Versus DirectorateoGeneral,oGoodso&oServiceoTaxoIntelligence,o ZonaloUnit,oLudhiana oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...Respondent 2) oooooo ooooCRM-M-14956-2025o(O&M) AmitoKumaroGoyal oooooooooooooooooooooooo....Petitioner oooooooooooo Versus DirectorateoGeneral,oGoodso&oServiceoTaxoIntelligence,o ZonaloUnit,oLudhiana oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARPREEToSINGHoBRAR Present: Mr.oVinodoGhai,oSenioroAdvocate withoMs.oKashishoSahnia,oAdvocate andoMr.oArnavoGhai,oAdvocate forotheopetitioneroinoCRM-M-8675-2025. Ms.oMuskaanoGupta,oAdvocate andoMs.oMuskanoChauhan,oAdvocate forotheopetitioneroinoCRM-M-14956-2025. Ms.oSharmilaoSharma,oSenioroPaneloCounsel,oDGGI inoCRM-M-14956-2025. Mr.oSunishoBindlish,oSenioroStandingocounsel forotheorespondent-oDGGI Ms.oPridhioSandhu,oSenioroStandingoCounsel,oCGST foroChiefoCommissioner,oPanchkula,oCGST. Mr.oManishoBansal,oPublicoProsecutor,oU.T.oChandigarh andoMr.oAlankritoBharadwaj,oAddl.oP.P.,oU.T.oExciseoandoTax CRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) HARPREEToSINGHoBRAR,oJ.o(ORAL)

¶1Thisocommonoorderoshallodisposeoofobothotheoaboveomentioned petitionsoasotheyoariseofromoaosimilarofactualomatrix.oHowever,oforotheosakeoof brevity,otheofactsoareotakenofromoCRM-M-8675-2025.

¶2TheopresentopetitionoisopreferredounderoSectiono483oofoBharatiya NagarikoSurakshaoSanhita,o2023oseekingoregularobailoinotheocaseostemmingofrom complaint o No. o DGGI/INT/INTL/939/2024-GrE-O/O o ADG-DGGI-ZU-LUDHIANAo(AnnexureoP-3)ofiledounderoSectionso132(1)(b)oofotheoCentral GoodsoandoServiceoTaxoAct,o2017o(hereinaftero'CGSToAct')oandopunishable underoSectiono132(1)(b)ooando132(1)(c)oofotheosame.

¶3In o pursuance o of o order o dated o 01.05.2025, o the o following o have suppliedotheirorespectiveoaffidavits: 1) JitendraoJorwal,oIAS,oTaxationoCommissioner,oDepartmento ofoTaxation,oPunjab.o 2) Anju,oDeputyoDirector,oDGGI,oChandigarhoZonaloUnit.o 3) DevikaoRani,oDeputyoDirector,oDGGI,oGurugramoZonalo Unit. Theosameoasotakenoonorecord.o FACTUALoBACKGROUND

¶4Briefly,otheofacts,oasoalleged,oareothatoanoinformationowasoreceived fromotheoFinancialoInvestigationoUnitoinoformoofoaoSuspiciousoTransaction Report(STR)oindicatingosubstantialocashowithdrawalsotootheotuneoofoRs.o4,938.63 crore,ofromotwoobranchesoofotheoIFSCoBank-oAmbalaoCanttoandoPanchkula.oIt wasofurtherorevealedothatopetitioner-AmitoKumaroGoyalowithdrewoRs.262.4 croreoinocashofromo08obankoaccountsowhileohisobrotheropetitioner-ManishoKumar CRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) withdrewoRs.455.02ocroreofromo11obankoaccounts.oTheopetitionersoherein createdo27ofakeofirms,o02oofowhichowereounderotheonameoofoAmitoKumaroGoyal whileotheoremainingo25owereoestablishedobyofraudulentlyoobtainingoIDsoofoother persons,othoughoconnectedotootheomobileonumberoandoemailoofoAmitoKumar Goyal.oOno08.10.2024,oaosearchowasoconductedounderoSectiono67(2)oofothe CGSToActoatofourolocationsoinoMandioGobindgarhoandoZirakpuroandoaonumber ofodocumentsopertainingotoofakeoGSTobillingoasowelloasovariousoelectronic devisesowereorecovered.oOnoinvestigation,oitowasoconcludedothatotheopetitioners issuedoforgedoandofabricatedoGSToinvoicesoworthoapproximatelyoRs.700ocrore andoavailedoinputotaxocreditoamountingotooapproximatelyoRs.107ocroreobasedoon theosame. CONTENTIONS

¶5LearnedoSeniorocounselo foroManishoKumarocontendsothat oGST registrationoofomostoofotheofirmsocreatedobyotheopetitioner(s)owasocancelledoas theiroprincipaloplaceoofobusinessowasofoundonon-operational.oHowever, othe physicaloverificationoreportsowereonotoprovidedotootheopetitioner.oTheopetitioner wasocoercedointoomakingoaostatementoadmittingohisoguiltowhicholedotoohisoarrest ono09.10.2024.oTheoseizedoelectronicodevicesounderwentoforensicoexamination withoutotheoconsentoofotheopetitioner.oFurther,otheonoticeounderoSectiono73,o74oof theoCGSToActowasoservedoatoaobelatedostage,oafterofilingoofotheopresentopetition, whichovitiatesoprosecutionounderoSectiono132oofotheoCGSToAct.oAdditionally, theoCentraloBoardoofoIndirectoTaxesoandoCustomso(CBIC)ovideoCircularoNo. 171/03/2022-GSTodatedo06.07.2022ohasoclarifiedothatotaxoliability,oinotermsoof Sectiono7oofotheoCGSToAct,oshallonotobeoimposedoifotheoaccusedoisomerely involvedoinoissuingoinvoices.oAnotherocircularobyotheoCBIC,obearingoNo.Neha CRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) 01/2025-GSTodatedo13.01.2025omandatesoexplainingotheogroundsoofoarrestoto theoaccused,owhichotheorespondentoofficialsofailedotooabideobyoinotheopresent case.oFurther,otheoauthorisationoforoarrestounderoSectiono69oofotheoCGSToActohas beenograntedoinoaomechanicalomanner,owithoutodulyoappreciatingotheomaterial availableoagainstotheopetitioner.oFurthermore,otheopetitionerohasobeenoinocustody sinceohisoarrestoono09.10.2024.oHowever,oaoperusaloofotheoziminioordersowould indicateothatotheomatterohasobeenofixedoforoprechargeoevidenceoofotheocomplaint forotheolasto06omonthsoandoisoyetotoobeoaccomplished.oLastly,otheoinvestigation alreadyostandsocompletedoquaopetitioners-ManishoKumaroasowelloasoAmit KumaroGoyal,oasosuchonoousefulopurposeowouldobeoservedobyodetainingothem further.o

¶6Learned o counsel o for o the o respondent-DGGI o submits o that o the petitionersoareoinvolvedoinoseriousofinancialomisconductoasotheyohaveocreated abouto27ofakeofirmsoandodefraudedotheoStateoexchequeroofoRs.o107ocrore, claimedobyothemoasoinputotaxocreditobyoissuingoforgedoandofabricatedoGSTobills. Duringotheocourseoofosearchooperations,o54ochequeobooks,o46oATMocards,o5 VoteroIDs,o11oPANocards,o7ostampsoandomultipleomobileophones,ohardodisks, laptopsoandolooseopapersowereorecovered.oFurther,oitowasodiscoveredothatomost ofotheseobogusofirmsohaveolostotheiroGSToregistrationoonoaccountoofobeingonon-existent/non-operational.oThus,oitoisoclearothatotheyowereospecificallyocreatedoby theopetitionersowithotheointentionotoodefraudotheoStateoexchequer.oMoreover,othe petitioner-AmitoKumaroGoyal,oinohisovoluntaryostatementohasoadmittedothatono goodsowereoactuallyoreceivedobyotheseofirmsoandothatoheowasomerelyousingothem tooraiseobills.oHeoalsoostatedothatohisobrothero(petitioner-ManishoKumar)oworked withohimoandothatoheoalsoosharedo30-40%oofohisocommissionowithohim.oLastly,Neha

""#$%&"
'
&( )

""*&$"
'
&( ) "&" !%5, :, !!95 <A9%'0! 
!Sandeep Goyal vs. Union of India 2020 (36) GSTL 497,%!%9      (,  E   !    !   0,     !!& *, 99% 0! 5%%6  % 6 0!6  ( )! !00! &%! % %!!! :, !! State of Gujarat vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran 2023(76) GSTL 146 (SC), PV Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India 2019(26) GSTL 175(SC), Subair T.B. vs. State of Kerala 2023(6) KLT 253 (Ker), Rajesh Gandhi vs. Union of India (@024) 23 Centax 319 (Telangana), Ashok Kumar vs. Commissioner 2020(4) GSTL 111(SC), Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat 2020(106) UPTC 1681 (Guj DB), Basudev Mittal vs. Union of India (2023) 2 Centax 291 (Chhattisgarh), Anush Kumar Gangwani vs. Union of India (2024) 14 Centax 274 (Chhattisgarh), Vikas Goel vs. CGST Commissionerate 2019(22) GSTL 191(P&H), Jatinder Manro vs. DGGI 2020(371) ELT 137 (P&H), Basudev Mittal vs. Union of India(2023) 2 Centax 295 (SC), Sanjay Dhingra vs. DGGI CRM<M<50256<2019 decided on 23.01.2020, Nigammadda Prasad vs. CBI 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 690 (SC), YS Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 108 (SC) 4> State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar 2017(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 175 (SC).

  .   



+ ( !%!%! 0!0! !!  6  !9%  





& %%6,!!6095 
! CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) "$" "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds force in the arguments out forth by the petitioner. However, in order to test the veracity of the same, the relevant data requires to be solicited to conduct a logic-based, empirical analysis. As such, the following officers listed below:

¶1Chief Commissioner, CGST, Panchkula Zone

¶2Chief Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh Zone

¶3ADG, Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, Ludhiana Zonal Unit

¶4ADG, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Gurugram Zonal Unit

¶5ADG, Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, Chandigarh Zonal Unit

¶6Taxation Commissioner, Punjab

¶7Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana

¶8Excise and Taxation Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh are directed to furnish the following information by means of an affidavit, by the next date of hearing:

(i) Number of complaints under Section 132 of the Act filed since 2017.

(ii) Number of trials concluded in the said complaints as well as the number of convictions made therein.

(iii) Number of show cause notices under Sections 73/74 of the Act issued in cases pertaining to an amount over Rs. 5 crores.

(iv) Number of show cause notices dropped without adjudicating upon the matter and initiating criminal proceedings under Section 132 of the Act.

(v) Number of arrests made after issuance of notice under Sections 73/74 of the Act."

¶38efo!eoans6e!in,otheoEuestionof!a edofo!oad:udication&oito6ou%do9e atitiositeotoostud5otheodataoti!o(idedoinotiu!suanceoofoa9o(e entionedoo!de!&o95 eansoofoaffida(itsofi%edo95:o

¶1Bitend!aoBo!6a%& o+4'&o)a*ationoCo issione!&o Detia!t entoof )a*ation&o"un:a9.o

¶2#ina5o"a!tatio'in,h&o+4'&o;*ciseoando)a*ationo oCo issione!& <a!5ana.o =. <a!ioKa%%i77at&o+4'&o;*ciseoando)a*ationoCo issione!&o.nion )e!!ito!5&oChandi,a!h.o CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) "%"

¶2Ba,!eetio'eno>e,i&oChiefoCo issione!oofoCent!a%o)a*o (C$') &oCent!a%o;*cise)&oChandi,a!h.o

¶54n:u&oDetiut5oDi!ecto!&oD$$+&oChandi,a!ho-ona%o.nit.o

¶6De(i7aoRani&oDetiut5oDi!ecto!&oD$$+&o$u!u,!a o-ona%o.nit.

¶74(inasho"ande5&oDetiut5oDi!ecto!&oD$$+&o/udhianao-ona%.o

¶8"!ana(eo'he7ha!&o4ssistantoCo issione!oofoC$')&o"anch7u%a.o

¶10)heoC$')o4ctoti!o(idesofo!oaodetia!t enta%ota*o%ia9i%it5oassess ent unde!o'ectiono7=oando72oaso6e%%oasofo!oc!i ina%oti!osecutionofo!ota*oe(asion unde!o'ectiono1=2.oGhi%eotheofo! e!oca%%sofo!oi 0ositionoofotiena%t5oinoe(entoof an5o6!on,doin,&otheo%atte!oti!o(idesofo!oaosentenceoofoi 0!ison entoutiotoo05 5ea!s. o4 oth!eeoBud,eo9enchoofotheo<onA9%eo'uti!e eoCou!toin oRadhika Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449&ohas otiined o that o no! a%%5 o it o 6ou%d o 9e o andato!5 o to o conc%ude o assess ent 0!oceedin,sounde!o'ectiono7=&o72oofotheoC$')o4cto9efo!eoinitiatin,oc!i ina% 0!osecutionounde!o'ectiono1=2oofotheoC$')o4ct.o<o6e(e!&oinoe*cetitiona% ci!cu stances&otheosa eocano9eoci!cu sc!i9edoafte!oti!o(idin,odetai%edo!easons fo!otheosa e.o'0ea7in,oth!ou,hoBusticeo'an:i(oKhanna&otheofo%%o6in,o6as otiined: "59. However, relying upon the judgment in the case of Makemytrip (supra), it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners, that the power under sub-section (5) to Section 132 cannot be exercised unless the procedure under Section 73 of the GST Act is completed and an assessment order is passed quantifying the tax evaded or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed. According to us, this contention should not be accepted as a general or broad proposition. We would accept that normally the assessment proceedings would quantify the amount of tax evaded, etc. and go on to show whether there is any violation in terms of clauses (a) to (d) to sub<section (1) of Section 132 of the GST Acts and that clause (i) to sub<section (1) is attracted. But CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) "#" there could be cases where even without a formal order of assessment, the department/Revenue is certain that it is a case of offence under clauses (a) to (d) to sub<section (1) of Section 132 and the amount of tax evaded, etc. falls within clause (i) of sub<section (1) to Section 132 of the GST Acts with sufficient degree of certainty. In such cases, the Commissioner may authorise arrest when he is able to ascertain and record reasons to believe. As indicated above, the reasons to believe must be explicit and refer to the material and evidence underlying such opinion. There has to be a degree of certainty to establish that the offence is committed and that such offence is non<bailable. The principle of benefit of doubt would equally be applicable and should not be ignored either by the Commissioner or by the Magistrate when the accused is produced before the Magistrate." (e 0hasisoadded)

¶11+nothisoconte*t&otheoaffida(itsosu9 ittedo95otheoconce!nedooffice!s a!e o 0e!used. o )he o $') o !e,i e o 6as o i 0%e ented o on o 01.07.2017 o and inte!estin,%5&osinceoitsoco ence ent&oon%5oaoso%ita!5ocon(ictionohaso9een adeoinotheo'tatesoofo"un:a9&o<a!5anaoando.niono)e!!ito!5oofoChandi,a!hotiut to,ethe!.oCu!the!&otheoe 0i!ica%odataosu,,estsothatonoticesounde!o'ectionso7=oand 72oofotheoC$')o4ctoa!eose!(edoinoao(e!5ofe6ocases.o+tocano9eosafe%5oinfe!!edothat 6he!eonoticeoisose!(ed&oa!!estsoa!eonoto9ein,o adeoho6e(e!&o6he!eoa!!estsoa!eoin facto ade&onooti!io!onoticeoisose!(ed.oCu!the!&otheo!estiondentosee sotoo9e ha9itua%o ofo initiatin,o 0!oceedin,so 9uto notoseein,o the oth!ou,h& o ao t!end atiti!oti!iate%5osho6casedo95otheodataoti!o(idedo95oa%%o08oD$$+o:u!isdictionsoin theo'tatesoofo"un:a9&o<a!5anaoandoChandi,a!h.oGhi%eoitoisounde!standa9%eothat econo icooffenceso!eEui!eosotihisticatedoin(esti,ation&otheosa eocannoto,ooon indefinite%5.oMuchotootheoconce!noofothisoCou!t&otheoe 0i!ica%odatao a7esoit a9undant%5oc%ea!othatosecu!in,oaocon(ictionoandoconc%udin,otheot!ia%oisonotoa atte!oofoti!io!it5ofo!otheo!estiondentoasoa%%oitsoene!,5oisode(otedoto6a!ds cu!tai%in,o%i9e!t5oofotheoti!ostiecti(eoaccused.o

¶12Ghi%eothisoCou!toisonotoo9%i(iousotootheo,!a(it5oofoecono ic CRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) offencesoandoitsoimpact,oofolate,oitohasobeenoobservedothatotheoinvolvementoofothe criminalojusticeosystemoinocasesopertainingotootheoCGSToActoseeminglyobegins atotheostageoofoarrestoandoendsowhenoaobailoisosecured.oAllowingosuchotendencies toogoouncheckedowouldoraiseoseriousodoubtsoaboutotheoefficacyoofoinvestigation, whichonaturallyoweakensotheofaithoofotheopublicoinotheojusticeodispensation mechanism.oMoreover,othisoCourtoisoofotheoconsideredoopinionothatotheoslow-pacedotrialsostemmingofromocomplaintsounderoSectiono132oofotheoCGSToActoand theodepartureofromotheoestablishedoprocedureoquaoSectiono73oando74oofothe CGSToAct,othroughoutotheoStatesoofoPunjab,oHaryanaoasowelloasoUnionoTerritory ofoChandigarhoisosymptomaticoofoaosystemicoproblem.oAsosuch,oitowouldobe against o the o interest o of o justice o to o shield o the o prosecuting o agencies o from accountabilityowithoregardotootimelyoconclusionoofotrials.o

¶13The o pattern o displayed o by o the o respondent o officials o shows o a concerningodeviationofromotheoprocedureoestablishedobyolaw.ooTheoCGSToActois clearoinoitsomandateoandodoesonotoleaveoscopeoforoambiguityoforotheorespondent toojustifyotheoconductoofoitsoofficials.oInopractice,otheorespondentoisoseenocarrying outoabruptoarrests,odrivenobyosomeoinexplicableourgencyoratherothanonecessity. However,oasotheodataosuggests,otheorespondentodoesonotopursueotheotrialowithothe sameourgency.oPerhaps,otheorespondentooughtotoodeliberateouponotheofactothatothe goaloofoinitiatingocriminaloprosecutionoisonotoachievedobyosecuringoonlyoanoarrest andomodifyotheiroapproachotooserveotheolargeropurpose.oMoreover,otheoprolonged legalobattleonotoonlyoinfringesouponotheorightotoospeedyotrialoasoenshrinedounder Articleo21oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndiaobutoalsoocausesoirreparableoharmotoothe psychologicalowellobeingoasowelloasotheoreputationoofotheoaccused. CRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) CRM-M-14956-2025o(O&M) ooooooooooo-10-

¶14Timeoandoagain,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtohasoreiteratedothatothe rightotoospeedyotrialoasoenshrinedoinoArticleo21oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia,oisoa fundamentaloconceptoinocriminalojurisprudenceoandoaosineoquaononoforoproper administrationoofojustice.oItomustobeonotedothato'trial'ohereinoencompasses investigation,oinquiry,otrial,oappeal,orevisionoandoretrialoetc.oi.e.oeverything commencingowithotheoaccusationotootheofinaloverdictoofotheolastoCourt.oFurther still,oitoisotriteolawothatonoopersonocanobeodeprivedoofohisolibertyoexceptothroughoa procedureothatoisoreasonable,ofairoandojustoasosuchodeprivationowouldoamountoto aodirectoviolationoofotheofundamentalorightoasoenshrinedoinoArticleo21oofothe ConstitutionoofoIndia.oBeothatoasoitomay,ocurtailmentoofopersonalolibertyotoosome extent,oduringotheojudicialoprocess,ocannotobeoavoided.oHowever,oifotheoperiodoof deprivationopendingotrialobecomesoexcessivelyolong,otheofairnessoasoguaranteed underoArticleo21oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndiaowouldocomeointooplay.o

¶15Advertingotootheofactualomatrixoofotheopresentocase,otheopetitioners haveobeenoinocustodyoforo9omonthso18odaysowhileonoosubstantialoprogressohas beenomadeoinotheotrial.oTheofinaloreportounderoSectiono173oCr.P.C.o(nowoSection 193oBNSS)ostandsopresentedoquaotheopetitioners.oAdmittedly,otheomatteroisoatothe stageoofoprechargeoevidenceoforotheolastosixomonthsoandohasobeenoadjournedofor abouto08otimes.oTheozimnioordersopresentedobyotheolearnedoSeniorocounseloin Courtoindicateothatotheotrialowasofixedoforoprechargeoevidenceoforotheofirstotime ono18.03.2025oandoisocurrentlyopendingoforo05.08.2025.o

¶16Inothisobackdrop,otheofollowingoquestionsoariseobeforeothisoCourt forojustoadjudicationoofotheopresentocontroversy: CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) ooooooooooo"11" 'Whether an accused can be denied the concession of bail in a complaint under Section 132 of the CGST Act, on account of pending investigation qua another accused?'

¶17+toisot!iteo%a6othatotheo atte!oofo9ai%o usto9eodecidedoEuaoeach accusedoindi(idua%%5&o9asedoonotheostiecifico!o%eoatt!i9utedotoothe .oRe%ianceoin thiso!e,a!doisoti%acedoonotheo:ud, ento!ende!edo95oaot6ooBud,eo9enchoofothe <onA9%eo'uti!e eoCou!toinoPrahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi and another

(2001) 4 SCC 280&o6he!einostiea7in,oth!ou,hoBusticeR.".o'ethi&otheofo%%o6in, 6asootiined: "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produceoprima facieoevidence in support of the charge. It is not excepted, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." oo <o6e(e!&oaostiecificostandohaso9eenota7eno95otheo%ea!nedocounse% fo!otheo!estiondentothatotheotietitione!soou,htonototoo9eo,!antedotheoconcessionoof !e,u%a!o9ai%oasoin(esti,ationoEuaoanothe!oco-accusedoiso5etotoo9eoconc%uded.o8e thatoasoito a5&otheofina%o!etio!toEuaotheotietitione!sohasoa%!ead5o9eenoti!esented afte!osu9:ectin,othe otooti!o%on,edointe!!o,ation.o>o6he!eodu!in,otheotho!ou,h in(esti,ationoti!ocessodidotheo!estiondentoe(eno!e ote%5ohintoatoan5onon-cootie!ationoonotia!toofotheotietitione!s.oCu!the!&oito!e ainsounc%ea!oasotoo6h5o CRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) CRM-M-14956-2025o(O&M) ooooooooooo-12-arresto processo haso noto beeno initiatedo againsto the oco-accusedo qua o whom investigationoisopending.oIfotheosameoisoforowantoofosufficientomaterialotoosatisfy theostandardsoforograntoofoauthorisationounderoSectiono69oCGSToAct,othe respondentomustoexplainotheodelayoinoinvestigationoasowelloefficacyothereof. Additionally,owhileotheopossibilityoofoevidenceotamperingohasobeenoflagged,othe entireocaseoisobasedoonodocumentaryoandoelectronicoevidence,owhichoareoalready availableowithotheoinvestigatingoagency,oandoalloofotheoprosecutionowitnessesoare officialsoofotheorespondent.oAsosuch,othereoisonooscopeoofotamperingowithothe evidenceooroinfluencingotheowitnesses.oInothatovein,othisoCourtofindsoitoagainst objectiveostandardsooforeasonoandojusticeotoodenyobailotoothoseoaccusedoagainst whom o final o report o has o been o presented o merely o on o the o ground o that o the investigationoisounderoprogressoquaoaoco-accused.oNothingohasobeenobroughtoto theoforeotoosuggestothatotheoreleaseoofotheopetitionersowouldoderailothe investigation;otherefore,othisocannotobeousedoasoaoreasonotookeepothemounder custody o indefinitely. o Lastly, o the o judgment o in oSandeep o Goyal o (supra)o is distinguishableoonofactsoasoitopertainedotooaosituationowhenoinvestigationowas pendingoquaotheobailoapplicantohimself.o

¶18Noodoubt,obyotheiroveryonature,oeconomicooffencesoposeoaothreatoto the o State's o financial o stability. oAcknowledging o their o gravity, o investigating agenciesoareoequippedowithosufficientopowersotooenableothemotoounearthothe modusooperandi oandoascertainowrongfulogains.oHowever,oprerogativeoofothe investigatingoagencyocannotosupersedeofundamentalorightsoofotheoaccused.oAt thisojuncture,oitowouldobeoprofitableotoomakeoaoreferenceotoothe opersuasive judgmentorenderedobyoaotwooJudgeobenchoofotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoin VineetoJainovs.oUnionoofoIndiaoCriminaloAppealono.2269oofo2025o(Arisingoout CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) ooooooooooo"1-" of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.4349 of 2025)+ostiea7in,oth!ou,hoBusticeo49ha5o'.oO7a& o9se!(edotheofo%%o6in,o!e,a!din,otheocu!!entostateoofoaffai!so6itho!e,a!dotoo,!ant ofo9ai%oinocasesoa!isin,ooutoofotheoC$')o4ct: " 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." 4dditiona%%5&o!e%ianceocanoa%soo9eoti%aceoonotheo:ud, ento!ende!ed 95oaot6ooBud,eo9enchoofotheo<onA9%eo'uti!e eoCou!toinoSanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40&o6he!einoito6asohe%dothato9ai%ocannoto9eodeniedo e!e%5oin (ie6oofose(e!it5oofotheooffence.o)heoCou!tsoou,htotoo9eoconsciousoofotheo!i,htoto stieed5ot!ia%o9esto6edoonotheoaccusedo95o(i!tueoofo4!tic%eo21oofotheoConstitution ofo+ndia.o'0ea7in,oth!ou,hoBusticeo<./.oDattuootiinedoasofo%%o6s: "43. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Articleo21oof the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) ooooooooooo"1*" completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.

¶44This Court, in the case ofoState of Kerala v. Raneef, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 381 : 2011(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 116 : (2011)1 SCC 784,ohas stated :- "15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Articleo21oof the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), andowe see no reasonowhy he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille. xxx xxx xxx

¶39Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds :- The primary ground is that offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer ; the secondary ground is that the possibility of the accused persons tempering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.

¶40The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the o Court o. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused c onstructively in the custody of the o Court o , whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction o f the o Court oa nd be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.

¶41ThisoCourtoinoGurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State, AIR CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) ooooooooooo"1&" 1978oSupremeoCourto179oobserved that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the HighoCourtoin its impugned order,oin our view, theosameois not convincing. xxx xxx xxx

46.o We are conscious of theofact 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,ow e cannot lose sight o of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the S pecial Judge , o CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation.oWe are of the view thatothe appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed byoCBI."(e 0hasisoadded)

¶13Cu!the!osti%%&o!ecent%5&oin oAshutosh Garg vs. Union of India Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8740/2024,otheo<onA9%eo'uti!e eoCou!t haso,!antedo9ai%oinoao atte!o6he!eotheoaccusedodef!audedotheo'tateoe*cheEue!oof Rs.10=2oc!o!eoaso+ntiuto)a*oC!edito95oc!eatin,o232ofa7eofi! s&ocitin,o%on, custod5oofo03o onthsoaso6e%%oasotheofactothato a*i u otiunish entoinothe offenceounde!o'ectiono1=2oC$')o4ctoiso05o5ea!s.o4ot6ooBud,eo9enchoofothe <onA9%eo'uti!e eoCou!toinoRatnambar Kaushik vs. Union of Indiao(2023) 2 SCC 671&ode%i9e!atedoutionotheo%a!,e%5odocu enta!5oandoe%ect!oniconatu!eoof e(idenceoaso6e%%oasotheoti!o%on,edot!ia%oino atte!sotie!tainin,otoota*oe(asion unde!otheoC$')o4ct&o6he!eotheoaccusedohadounde!,oneoa9outo2o onthsoof custod5&oandootiinedoasofo%%o6s: "6. 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), Neha the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 CRM"M"#$%&"2'2&(O)M) CRM"M"1*9&$"2'2&o(O)M) ooooooooooo"1$" 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.

¶7Hence, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial Court, which among others, shall also include the condition to direct the petitioner to deposit his passport. Further, such other conditions shall also be imposed by the trial Court to secure the presence of the petitioner to diligently participate in the trial. It is further directed that the petitioner be produced before the trial Court forthwith, to ensure compliance of this order."(e 0hasisoadded) CONCLUSION

¶20+no(ie6oofotheodiscussionoa9o(e&othisoCou!tohasonoohesitationoin ho%din,othatoanoaccusedoinoaoco 0%aintounde!o'ectiono1=2oofotheoC$)o4ct cannoto9eodeniedotheoconcessionoofo9ai%&oso%e%5oonotheo,!oundothatoin(esti,ation !e ainsotiendin,oEuaoaoco-accused. oCu!the! o!e&o%ea!nedocounse%ofo!othe !estiondentocou%donotocont!o(e!totheofactothatotheotietitione!soha(eoc%ean antecedentsoandoha(eofu%%5ocootie!atedoinotheoin(esti,ation.oMo!eo(e!&o ostoof theoe(idenceoisoinodocu enta!5oandoe%ect!onicofo! &o6hichoisoa%!ead5oin 0ossessionoofotheoin(esti,atin,oa,enc5.

¶214cco!din,%5&o9othotheoa9o(e entionedotietitionsoa!eoa%%o6edoand theotietitione!sona e%5-4 itoKu a!o$o5a%oandoManishoKu a!oa!eohe!e95 !e%easedoono!e,u%a!o9ai%&osu9:ectotoothei!ofu!nishin,o9ai%o9onds?su!et5o9onds& CRM-M-8675-2025(O&M) CRM-M-14956-2025o(O&M) ooooooooooo-17-respectively,otootheosatisfactionoofotheoconcernedoCourt.oHowever,otheobailoshall alsoobeosubjectotootheofollowingoconditions:

(a)oTheyoshallodepositotheiropassports,oifoany,obeforeotheolearned trialoCourt;

(b)oTheyoshallocooperateoinotrialowithoutoseekingoanyounnecessary adjournments;o

(c)oTheyoshallonototamperowithotheoprosecutionoevidenceoby intimidatingooropressurizingotheowitnessesoduringotrial;o

(d)oTheyoshallonotodisposeoofoanyoofotheiropropertyooroofothe firms/companiesoinowhichotheyohaveosubstantialointerestoandowhich areoalsoounderoinvestigation;

¶22Nothingoobservedohereinaboveoshallobeoconstruedoasoexpressionoof opinionoofothisoCourtoonomeritsoofotheocaseolestoitomayoprejudiceotheotrial.oThe trialoCourtoisoalsoodirectedotooproceedowithotheotrialoonoitsoownomerits.o

¶23Needlessotoosay,oifotheopetitionersohamperotheoinvestigationoquaothe co-accusedoinoanyomanner,otheorespondentowillobeoatolibertyotooapproachothe concernedotrialoCourtoandoifosufficientoreasonsoareofound,otheotrialoCourtowillobe wellowithinoitsorightsotoocancelotheirobail.o

¶24Pendingomiscellaneousoapplication(s),oifoany,oshalloalsoostand disposedoof.

¶25Aophotoocopyoofothisoorderobeoplacedoonotheofileoofoconnectedocase. oooooooo(HARPREEToSINGHoBRAR) oooJUDGE

28.07.2025 Whetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whetheroreportable : Yes/No