Anticipatory Bail Denied: GST Evasion as a "Class Apart" Economic Offence

Anticipatory Bail Denied: GST Evasion as a “Class Apart” Economic Offence

The Legal Issue

The central question is whether an individual accused of significant GST evasion is entitled to Anticipatory Bail (Pre-arrest bail) under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 of BNSS). The Court examined the tension between the principle of personal liberty and the necessity of “custodial interrogation” to unearth complex financial frauds.

Facts Of Case

The Accusation: The petitioner-assessee was accused of tax evasion under Section 132 of the CGST Act (which typically involves fake invoicing, fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC), or non-payment of collected tax).
The Plea: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, citing the legal maxim that “Bail is the rule, and Jail is the exception.”
The Status: At the time of the plea, the investigation was in its “threshold” stage (ongoing and active).

The Decision

The Rajasthan High Court (2026) ruled in favour of the Revenue, dismissing the anticipatory bail application:

Economic Offences are Different: The Court held that economic offences are not just “crimes against a person” but crimes against the state. They are committed with deliberate design and result from deep-rooted conspiracies that cause a serious loss to the public exchequer.
No Straitjacket Formula: While acknowledging that bail is generally the rule, the Court stated that there is no fixed formula for exercising discretion. Each case must be judged on the gravity and seriousness of the offence.
Preserving Investigation Integrity: Granting anticipatory bail at the “threshold” of a GST investigation may hamper effective interrogation. The Court noted that in such complex matters, the “element of surprise” and custodial questioning are often essential to find the truth.
Exceptional Circumstances Only: Following Supreme Court precedents (such as P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement), the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in economic offences should be granted sparingly and only in truly exceptional cases.
Outcome: Bail was denied as the investigation was still in progress and the allegations were of a grave nature.

Key Takeaways

Threshold Investigations: If the GST department is currently conducting searches or summoning witnesses, Courts are highly unlikely to grant anticipatory bail to the primary accused.
Section 132 Gravity: Offences involving evasion exceeding ₹5 Crores are cognizable and non-bailable. In such cases, the burden on the petitioner to prove they deserve anticipatory bail is exceptionally high.
Economic Impact: The Courts view GST fraud as a threat to the “economy at large,” making it much harder to obtain relief compared to non-economic criminal cases.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Premchand Jain

Union of India^*

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6562 OF 2025

FEBRUARY 7, 2026

Swadeep Singh Hora and Aman Garg, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ajatshatru Mina and Rajat Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who are having apprehension of their arrest in connection with Criminal Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/574/2025-Gr.I registered for offences punishable under Sections 132(1), 132(1)(i)(iv) & 132(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that petitioner No.1 is a Director of two companies, namely M/s Prem Jain Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (M/s PJIUPL) and M/s Tanay Dhyata Steel Concast Ltd. (M/s TDSCL), while petitioner No.2, who is the son of petitioner No.1, is also one of the Directors of the said companies. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that, in their capacity as Directors, they have evaded tax amounting to Rs.20,63,97,337/-(Rupees Twenty Crore Sixty-Three Lakh Ninety-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Seven only). Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused solely on the basis of the statement of one Manoj Vijay, whose firm, M/s Mahaveer Trading Company, is alleged to have supplied scrap material/TMT bars to the petitioners’ firms without issuance of bills. It is contended that the petitioners have no association with the said Manoj Vijay or his firm. Learned counsel further submits that although Mr. Gyan Chand, who is the General Manager of M/s PJIUPL and the authorized signatory of M/s TDSCL, has alleged in his statement that such transactions were carried out at the directions of petitioner No.1, except for the said allegation, there is no material on record to even prima facie establish the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offence.

3. It is further submitted that against the alleged tax evasion of Rs.20,63,97,337/-, the petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.10,38,98,566/- (Rupees Ten Crore Thirty-Eight Lakh NinetyEight Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Six only) with the Department, which, according to learned counsel, demonstrates the bona fide intention of the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners are willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and, in compliance with the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, they have appeared before the concerned authority. Learned counsel argues that since petitioners have joined the investigation as per direction of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted and no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioners to arrest. He thus, prays that this pre-arrest bail application may be allowed.

4. To buttress his contentions, counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon various judgments/orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts including this Court in the following cases:-

Dell International Services India (P.). Ltd. v. Adeel Feroze 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4576.

Pankaj Bansal v. UOI (SC)/(2024) 7 SCC 576.

Bijender v. State of Haryana [SLP Crl. No.1079/2024, dated 06.03.2024].

Radhika Agarwal v. UOI (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 449.

Tarun Jain v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) GST 380 (Delhi)/Bail Application No.3771/2021 & Crl. M.A. No.16552/2021, dated 26.11.2021.

Nitin Verma v. State of U.P GST 83/49 GSTL 357 (Allahabad)/ Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail No.4116/2020, dated 05.01.2021.

Vineet Jain v. UOI GSTL 129 (SC)/(arising out of SLP Crl No.4349/2025, dated 28.04.2025).

Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [1994] 4 SCC 260.

C. Pradeep v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Selam (SC)/(2021) 19 SCC 547.

10.

Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457.

11.

CBI v. V.C. Shukla (SC)/(1998) 3 SCC 410.

12.

Manohar Lal Sharma v. UOI (2017) 11 SCC 731.

13.

Gulam Fareed v. State of Rajasthan [Criminal Appeal No. 4962 of 2025, dated 20-11-2025].

14.

Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 3219/2025, dated 28.07.2015].

15.

Hemant Sharma v UOI [S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6501/2025, dated 26.09.2025].

5. Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Standing Counsel is appearing on behalf of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI). It is contended that serious allegations of tax evasion to the tune of Rs.20,63,97,337/- have been levelled against the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on a factual report dated 06.10.2025. From a perusal of the said factual report, it emerges that the petitioners did not appear before the DGGI for recording of their statements under Section 70 of the CGST Act, nor were any written submissions furnished on their behalf. The record further indicates that no communication was received by the Department reflecting any intention of the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation. It is also noted that although interim protection was granted to the petitioners by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025, the petitioners did not appear before the DGGI despite issuance of summons. The petitioners appeared before the Department only after directions were issued by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2025, pursuant to which they appeared on 26.09.2025. Upon such appearance, the statement of petitioner No.1, Prem Chand Jain, was recorded, wherein he accepted overall responsibility for the functioning and decision-making of both the companies. However, during the course of examination, it transpired that the role of petitioner No.2, Dhyata Jain, was confined to providing field-level assistance under the instructions of petitioner No.1 and his role is ancillary in nature. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention on behalf of the respondent is that the present application seeking pre-arrest bail on behalf of petitioner No.1, Premchand Jain, does not merit consideration.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. A bare perusal of the factual report reveals that petitioner No.1 was solely responsible for the functioning and decisionmaking of both the companies. He has admitted that when initially approached by Shri Manoj Vijay, the proposal to avail the services of Mahaveer Trading Company was directly conveyed to his General Manager, Shri Gyan Chand Jain, who outrightly declined the offer. However, subsequently, Mahaveer Trading Company began facilitating transportation and clearances for a competitor, which adversely impacted the business interests of petitioner No.1. In view of the existing market liabilities and mounting financial pressure, petitioner No.1 thereafter agreed to avail the services of Mahaveer Trading Company. The petitioner No.1 has further admitted that clandestine clearances of 2,50,65,975 kgs and 22,35,260 kgs of TMT bars, respectively, were carried out through the facilitation of Shri Manoj Vijay. He also admitted that these clearances were predominantly made to buyers within the State of Rajasthan and that the resultant GST liability amounted to Rs.20,63,97,337/- (CGST + SGST), calculated at the rate of Rs.42 per kg. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.10,38,98,566/-has already been deposited by him. These admitted facts unequivocally establish the central role and direct responsibility of petitioner No.1 in directing, controlling, and managing the affairs of both the companies.

8. It is a settled position of law that, grant of bail is a rule whereas its refusal is an exception. The question whether bail should be granted in a case has to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that particular case. There can be no straitjacket formula or settled rules for exercise of discretion but the discretion to grant bail in the case of a non-bailable offence has to be exercised in accordance with the rules and principles laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure and various judicial precedents. There cannot be a set formula for considering the plea of bail of an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances relevant to the case.

9. Economic offences stand on a different footing for the purpose of bail considerations, as they constitute a distinct class of crimes involving deep-rooted conspiracies, large-scale loss of public funds, and far-reaching adverse impact on the economic fabric of the nation. Such offences are committed with deliberate design and cool calculation, driven solely by the motive of unlawful personal gain and a desire to become rich quickly, with complete disregard for societal consequences. Persons indulging in such criminal activities show scant concern for the safety, security, life, property, and well-being of the common public. The misappropriation of public exchequer and depletion of national resources caused by such acts ultimately undermine the welfare of society at large and pose a serious challenge to the criminal justice system. Owing to their grave nature and widespread repercussions, economic offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole must be viewed with utmost seriousness. In cases involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds, the Court, while considering an application for bail, is required to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of the public and the State. The nature and seriousness of the offence, coupled with its societal impact, are vital considerations that must be squarely addressed while adjudicating bail applications in such matters.

10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief and not a matter of right. The said relief is intended to protect innocent persons from false or motivated arrest and, it is not intended to be granted as a routine measure, particularly in cases involving economic offences. Economic offences are committed with deliberate design and are often the result of deep-rooted conspiracies, causing serious loss to the public exchequer and adversely affecting the economy at large. Such offences have wide societal ramifications and impact the community as a whole rather than an individual victim. In such cases, custodial interrogation assumes significance, as it is often necessary to unearth the modus operandi of the offence, trace the money trail, and identify other persons involved or beneficiaries of the crime. Grant of anticipatory bail at the threshold may frustrate effective investigation in offences of this nature.

11. Courts have consistently held that while considering anticipatory bail in economic offences, factors such as the gravity of the offence, role of the accused, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and impact on public interest must be given due weight. Grant of anticipatory bail at the threshold may hamper effective investigation. Hence, anticipatory bail in economic offences should be granted sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, and only where the court is satisfied that arrest is unnecessary and motivated.

12. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement AIR 2019 (SC) 4198, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for grant of anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving economic offences like money laundering, reiterated that such relief should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It emphasized that custodial interrogation is often essential during investigation, as it can lead to discovery of concealed material and crucial information, which might be obstructed if the accused is protected by pre-arrest bail. Referring to State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 the Court noted that interrogation under bail protection becomes a mere formality, while custodial questioning is more effective. In cases involving economic offences, the Court highlighted their seriousness and complexity, observing that such crimes are committed with deliberate design, harming the economy and public interest. Economic offences were described as a class apart, requiring a different approach to bail. It relied on precedents like Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 and Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kuman Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, stressing that personal liberty must be balanced against the need for effective investigation, especially where cross-border money trails and multiple stages of laundering are involved. In the specific case discussed (related to P. Chidambaram), the Court found that the stage of investigation, nature of allegations, and materials collected including international inputs justified denial of anticipatory bail. It concluded that granting such relief would hamper investigation, and that Section 438 of the Cr.P.C should be invoked only when the allegations appear frivolous or groundless, which is not the case here.

13. In the above cited judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized on the aspect that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, particularly in serious economic offences involving large-scale fraud, public money, or complex financial crimes. Such offences are distinct and grave, posing serious threats to the country’s economy and financial stability.

14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and seriousness of the offences, as also the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned supra, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1 Premchand Jain, especially when the investigation is under progress.

15. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application qua petitioner No.1 Premchand Jain stands dismissed.

16. So far as the petitioner No.2 Dhyata Jain is concerned, his role in both the companies was limited to field level assistance under the instructions of his father i.e., petitioner No.1, who is the prime accused of this case.

17. Consequently, this anticipatory bail is partly allowed to the extent of petitioner No.2 Dhyata Jain. The concerned S.H.O/ I.O/ Arresting Officer, in Criminal Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/574/2025-Gr.I registered for offences punishable under Sections 132(1), 132(1)(i)(iv) & 132(5) of CGST Act is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner No.2- Dhyata Jain S/o Premchand Jain, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

(i)

that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Agency as and when required;

(ii)

that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any 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, and

(iii)

that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.