ORDER
1. Heard Shri Vibhu Rai alongwith Shri Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the GST.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Complaint Case No. 47 of 2023, under sections 132(1), (b), 132(1)(i) of C.G.S.T. Act 2017, Meerut Commissionerate, C.G.S.T. Meerut, Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, as per allegation applicant embezzled fund of more than rupees 120 crores pertaining to receipts of fake supplies made by fake firms with an intention to manage the firm of illegal sale produce leading to GST evasion but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.
4. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 06.06.2024 i.e. for the last one and a half years and offences punishable under C.G.S.T. Act are triable by Magistrate. He next submits, however, applicant has been challaned for the offence under Section 132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act, which is non bailable and cognizable offence but even maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years with fine.
5. He further submits, after investigation complaint has been filed and, therefore, there is no need of other further detention of the applicant. He next submits, even from the record it reflects that case of the prosecution is entirely based on documentary evidence and, therefore, trial will take considerable period of time and there is no chance of its early disposal.
6. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of GST Department vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant by playing fraud fraudulently committed GST evasion of more than rupees 120 crores, therefore, allegations levelled against him are quite serious but could not dispute that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for the last one and a half years and offences punishable under C.G.S.T. Act are triable by Magistrate. He however further submits, applicant has been challaned for the offence under Section 132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act, which is non bailable and cognizable offence but could not dispute, maximum punishment provided for such offence is five years with fine. He also could not dispute, after investigation complaint has been filed and entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence and trial will take considerable time.
8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. As per allegation, applicant fraudulently committed GST evasion of about rupees 99 crores but all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and applicant is detained in jail for the last one and a half years.
10. Further, record also suggests that after investigation complaint has been filed and the entire case of prosecution is based on documentary evidence, therefore, 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 and there is no hope of its early disposal.
11. The Apex Court in case of Ratnambar Kaushik v. 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.”
12. Further, applicant is in custody in the present matter for the offence under Section 132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act, which is though cognizable and non-bailable offence but maximum five years sentence with fine is provided and offence is trialbe by Magistrate.
13. The Apex Court recently in the case of Vineet Jain v. Union of India (SC)/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….”
14. 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.
15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.
16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
19. Let the applicant-Mukul Sharma 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. |
20. 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.
21. 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.