Order : GANESH RAM MEENA (V.J.), J. 1. The present bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 483 of the BNSS , 2023 in connection with Case No. AC/EWII/C/Jaipur/ 2024-25/ 3557 registered at State GST, Ward-I, Circle-C, Enforcement Wing-III, State Tax Rajasthan, Jaipur for the offence under section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods & Service / Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’). 2. Mr. Kapil Gupta, counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has been implicated in the case with the false and fabricated facts. Counsel submits that the allegation against the accused petitioner is that he by actually operating certain firms which were registered in the name of some other persons, issued the fake invoices and claimed input tax credit (ITC) and ultimately made evasion of GST amounting to about Rs.26 crores. Counsel also submitted that the State GST Department after making thorough investigation in the matter, filed the complaint before the competent Magistrate without keeping any investigation against any person or firms pending. Counsel also submits that the accused petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 22.05.2025. Counsel submits that the maximum punishment for the offence alleged against the accused petitioner is five years and the offence is also compoundable. Counsel further submits that in all there are 46 witnesses to be examined by the trial court and since this is a warrant case, pre-charge evidence is required before framing the charge and in this manner the conclusion of the trial will take long time. In support the submissions, the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- A. Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10319 of 2022, decided on 5.12.2022 by Hon’ble the Apex Court. B. Siya Ram Yadav v. Union of India & Anr., (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7283/2024) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.10.2024. C. Rajesh Goyal v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16113/2024) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.03.2025. D. Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2025 (Arising out S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4349 of 2025) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on April 18, 2025. C. Rajesh Goyal v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16113/2024) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.03.2025. D. Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2025 (Arising out S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4349 of 2025) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on April 18, 2025. E. Dhanraj Singhal v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6278/2020) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.09.2020. F. Dev Adania @ Dev Madan Adania v. Union of India & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12371/2020) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.11.2020. G. Saurabh Jindal Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14791/2022) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.12.2022 along-with connected bail application. H. Sanjeev Jain Vs. Union of India , (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3608/2021) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.05.2021 along-with connected bail application. I. Naresh Chandra Jajra v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1914/2022) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 25.02.2022. J. Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India (Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8740/2024 , decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 26.07.2024. K. Rajiv Jindal v. The State of U.P. , (Criminal Appeal Nos…..2024) [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 13548-13550/2024 decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 25.10.2024. L. Krishna Damani v. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No. 2743 of 2024) [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(s). 6954/2024] decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on May 27, 2024. 3. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner is a businessman and he has contributed much in the form of tax and there are no chances of his absconding. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the bail application and submits that during the investigation it has been found that it is the accused petitioner who was actually running certain firms which were registered in the names of either his family members or his employees. Counsel also submits that certain persons in whose names the firms were registered have deposed to the Department as regards the actual operation of those firms by the accused petitioner. Counsel also submits that certain persons in whose names the firms were registered have deposed to the Department as regards the actual operation of those firms by the accused petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor also stated that the investigation from their side is complete and they have already submitted the investigation report. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the offences alleged against the accused petitioner are of serious and grave nature. The act of the accused petitioner is a dent to the economy of the State. 6. On a query put to the State Counsel, he on instructions of the Officer of the Department, has stated that the Department has already proceeded for cancellation of the dummy firms. 7. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the material available on the record. 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he by actually operating 44 firms which were registered in the names of some other persons, has issued the fake invoices and claimed the input tax credit (ITC) and ultimately made evasion of GST amounting to about Rs.26 crores, though the Department after making a thorough investigation has found the substance in the allegations against the accused petitioner and submitted their report. However, the said allegations against the accused petitioner are to be proved on the basis of evidence to be led before the trial court. 9. As per the averments made in para 7 of the complaint, certain other persons including the firm M/s. Droom Company and the RTO Agents are also involved in the matter but the Department has neither implicated them as accused in the matter nor have kept the investigation pending against them. The Department has filed the charge-sheet against the accused petitioner only. 10. The punishment for the alleged offence is given under section 132 of the Act of 2017 and the maximum punishment for amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakhs rupees, would be imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine, meaning-thereby, the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for five years. 11. Though the Department has filed the report/ complaint against the accused petitioner. 11. Though the Department has filed the report/ complaint against the accused petitioner. However, it is a well settled law that the presumption of innocence is available to an accused / person under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent Court ( Ramesh v. State of Karanataka , reported in 2024(9) SCC 169 ). 12. In the present case, the accused petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2025 and looking to the fact that the trial of the case has not yet started and in all there are 46 prosecution witnesses to be examined by the trial court, it can be very well presumed that the the conclusion of trial will take long time. 13. This Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4191/2024) decided on November 6, 2024 while granting bail to the accused therein for the same offence has observed in para 8 as under:- “8. The maximum punishment for the offences alleged against the accused petitioner is five years and the present accused petitioner has already suffered the custody of more than seven months as he was arrested on 16.03.2024 in the matter. The alleges offences as per the provisions of law are compoundable and triable by the Magistrate. The trial of the case is likely to take considerable time.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain (supra), has observed as under:- “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. 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. By setting aside the impugned order dated 24th January, 2025 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, we grant bail to the appellant. The appellant shall be immediately produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall enlarge him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the conclusion of the trial.” 15. Having regards to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly the fact that the accused petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2025 and the Department after completion of the thorough investigation submitted its report and the trial of the case has not yet started wherein 46 witnesses are to be examined, which may take considerable time and so also the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain (supra) and the fact that the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any extra ordinary circumstances in the present case for rejection of bail application of the accused petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case deems just and proper to release the accused petitioner on bail. 16. Accordingly, bail application of accused petitioner namely; Rajesh Agarwal s/o Shri Keshardev Agarwal is allowed and it is directed that the accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before before the trial Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 17. The accused petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. (GANESH RAM MEENA (V.J.)), J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)