ORDER : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. This third bail application has been filed by the petitioner for seeking bail in respect of Criminal Complaint No.DGGI/INT/ARM/5/2024-0/OADG/DGGI/JZU-Jaipur dated 03.06.2024, registered at office of DGGI, JZU, Jaipur for offences punishable under Section 132 (1) (b) (c) (f) & (l) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act of 2017'). 2. First bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2025. However, while deciding the first bail application, following directions were given by this Court: "Since while rejecting the Bail Application, custody of the accused-petitioner is resultantly continued, the Trial Court is expected to conclude the Trial within a reasonable time, ensuring right of the accused petitioner regarding speedy trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 3. Aggrieved by rejection of bail vide order dated 18.06.2025, the petitioner approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal), however, the same was withdrawn with the contention that one clarification application has already been filed by the petitioner in order to seek clarification of order dated 18.06.2025 passed by this Court in first bail application. 4. The clarification application filed by the petitioner was also withdrawn by the petitioner and on account of withdrawing the application, the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2025. Thereafter, without approaching the learned Court below, directly second bail application was filed by the petitioner before this Court, however, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner on 16.09.2025 with liberty to approach the learned trial Court. 5. Thereafter, bail application was filed before the learned trial Court by the petitioner with specific plea that although from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the instant matter, more than 90 days have expired, yet the learned trial Court has not concluded it and under such circumstances, in view of Section 480 (6) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S.'), the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent was taken by the learned trial Court on 01.02.2025. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent was taken by the learned trial Court on 01.02.2025. Thereafter, first time complainant's witness PW-1 Rakesh Kumar Meena appeared before the learned trial Court, however, even his chief examination could not be concluded for the reason that he wanted to cite relevant register which was not available with him. Thereafter, on subsequent so many dates i.e., 07.08.2025, 12.08.2025 & 18.08.2025 and even today, the matter was fixed for completion of examination of PW-1, yet till date even his statements have not been completed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in the meanwhile, other two witnesses PW-2 (Meenu Verma) and PW-3 were examined, however, only PW-2 has completed her statements and even the statements of PW-3 are still incomplete. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per list of witnesses, there are ten witnesses, who are to be examined before the learned Trial Court and from the first date on which PW-1 appeared before the learned trial Court, more than 90 days have expired and even PW-1 has not completed his deposition. Under these circumstances, as per learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, provisions of Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S., can be pressed into service. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 (2) SCC 621 & Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 (12) SCC 660 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Banwari Lal Kushwah Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.12083/2024) decided on 04.11.2024. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither in the order-sheets of trial, nor in the order passed by the learned trial Court on his second bail application, nothing has reflected so as to justify the delay, which has occurred beyond the permissible period under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. 11. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither in the order-sheets of trial, nor in the order passed by the learned trial Court on his second bail application, nothing has reflected so as to justify the delay, which has occurred beyond the permissible period under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that even this Court directed the learned trial Court to proceed further expeditiously but even today, no substantial progress has taken place in the trial of the instant case, where the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132 of the Act of 2017 is five years and the petitioner has already been in incarceration of 16 months, he is entitled of bail in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. Hence, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays for grant the bail to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for Union of India seriously opposes the third bail application and submits that the petitioner is accused of economic offence involving hundreds of crores, therefore, bail application filed by him should be treated in a different manner than the ordinary bail applications which have been filed under the provisions of B.N.S.S. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. cannot be applied in the matters where complaint has been filed under the provisions of the Act of 2017, which is a special statute and trial shall be governed by the provisions of the Act of 2017 and not by B.N.S.S. He also submits that while rejecting the bail application, the reason assigned by the learned trial Court the economic offence should be seen with different glasses, where crores of rupees of general public are involved, therefore, that reason should be treated as justified reasons for not concluding trial within 60 days, even if the provisions of (6) of B.N.S.S. are held to be applicable. Hence, learned counsel for the respondent prayed for rejecting the bail application. 14. Heard rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. Provisions of Section 480 (6) of the B.N.S.S. are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application, which are reproduced here as under: "480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence- (1)........ (2)........ 14. Heard rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. Provisions of Section 480 (6) of the B.N.S.S. are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application, which are reproduced here as under: "480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence- (1)........ (2)........ (6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non- bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate directs." 16. Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any provision under the Act of 2017, which may regulate the procedure for conducting the trial under the Act of 2017. Although it was submitted by him that the provisions of either Cr.P.C. or new criminal code B.N.S.S. are not applicable in the trial under the provisions of Act of 2017, yet he has utterly failed to show any provision of excluding the provisions of Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S. in the Act of 2017. 17. Section 480 (6) of the B.N.S.S. deals with the general procedure when bail may be taken in non-bailable offences. In the instant matter, the petitioner is facing trial under the provisions of Section 132 (1) (b) (c) (f) & (l) of the Act of 2017, which is a non- bailable offences and in order to ensure speedy trial in the cases which are otherwise triable by Magistrate, the legislature in its wisdom has inserted specific provision of (6) of B.N.S.S., so as to ensure the fulfillment of true spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such provision specifies that the right to release on bail even on non completion of trial within a period of 60 days is confined only to such person, who were in custody during the whole period of the trial. In the instant case, the petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance has been taken thereafter on 01.02.2025, therefore this Court thinks it proper to consider the question of applicability of (6) of B.N.S.S. in the instant matter. 18. In the instant case, the petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance has been taken thereafter on 01.02.2025, therefore this Court thinks it proper to consider the question of applicability of (6) of B.N.S.S. in the instant matter. 18. The order-sheets of the learned trial Court are placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been perused and such order-sheets also do not reflect anything even to suggest any reason whatsoever, if recorded by the learned trial Court for not concluding the trial within a period of 60 days, nor such delay has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also indicated the incomplete statements given by the PW-1, in which he is not able to conclusively state as to whether even the investigation in the instant matter is complete or not. 19. Under these circumstances, where the prosecution has produced only three witnesses out of total 10 witnesses before the learned trial Court and out of those three witnesses only examination of one witness (PW-2) has been completed and the examination of other two witnesses (PW-1 & PW-3) is yet to be completed, a serious question arises with regard to liberty of the petitioner, whose earlier bail applications have been rejected and he has been left to remain behind the bars awaiting completion of trial and the perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court does not reflect any urgency at the part of the learned trial Court. The order-sheets also do not reflect that the delay has been caused by or for the reasons attributable to the accused. 20. In the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), where similar directions were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for expeditious trial was given with further liberty to approach the Court for fresh bail, question with regard to continuing the custody despite, trial being conducted at a snail's pace came into consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ultimately bail was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. 21. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S., in the case of Banwari Lal Kushwah (supra) and it was observed as under: "In the present case, as is evident from the order of the trial Court, the charges for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of IPC were framed on 31.05.204 and same are triable by the Magistrate. The first date for recording evidence was fixed on 14.06.2024 and 60 days completed soon on 13.08.2024." 22. Thus, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while exercising the powers under Section 480 (6) B.N.S.S. and considering the facts that there was no likelihood of completion of trial in near future, bail was granted to the accused-petitioner in the said case. 23. This Court is mindful of the fact that (6) of B.N.S.S. does not confer an absolute or infeasible right to bail, however, it provides a procedural safeguard against undue delay in trial. 24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 (5) SCC 140, has interpreted Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C., which was corresponding provision to Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. and has categorically held that liberal approach to bail should be taken by Magistrate where trial in offences are triable by Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence. It was further held that the legislature has incorporated this provision with a view to recognize right of an accused for a speedy trial with a view to protect individual liberty. However, such bail can be refused by the Magistrate only by assigning reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence and such reasons for delay must be attributable to the accused. 25. Relevant part in the judgment of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu (supra) in para Nos. 12, 13, 19 & 20 are being reproduced as under: " 12. The grounds relevant for the purpose of refusing bail would not be the same which could have weighed with the Magisterial Court while refusing bail under Sections 437 (1) & (2) of the Code. That is a stage much prior to trial. 12, 13, 19 & 20 are being reproduced as under: " 12. The grounds relevant for the purpose of refusing bail would not be the same which could have weighed with the Magisterial Court while refusing bail under Sections 437 (1) & (2) of the Code. That is a stage much prior to trial. Whereas the stage contemplated under Section 437 (6), is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days from first date fixed for taking evidence. If the grounds were expected or intended by the legislature to be the same, there was no reason for the legislature to insert sub-section (6) of the Code. 13. In our view, therefore, reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of the said section have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage. If this meaning is not given, sub-section (6) would be rendered otiose. 19. This Court is of a considered view that applications under Section 437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of the accused by the court concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of evidence e.g. where the case depends on documentary evidence which is already collected; where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by the accused; where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to the sentence prescribed for the offence for which he is tried. Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under (6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail. 20. Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under (6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail. 20. Differently put, where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437 (6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution of India and sought to be protected by insertion of sub-section (6) to of the Code by the legislature." 26. In the present case, perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court does not reveal any such reason recorded by the learned Court below for attributing the delay to the accused-petitioner. 27. Recording of reasons is deemed essential to ensure that transparency, fairness and accountability in decision-making processes are duly maintained. 28. In the light of foregoing discussions, this Court deems it just and proper to invoke the provisions of Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. and to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 29. Accordingly, the Third Bail Application is, hereby, allowed. The accused-petitioner Ankit Bansal S/o Shri Shriniwas shall be released on bail in pursuance of Criminal Complaint No.DGGI/INT/ARM/5/2024-0/OADG/DGGI/JZU-Jaipur registered at office of DGGI, JZU, Jaipur on furnishing a personal bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.2,50,000/- each. That apart, the accused-petitioner shall also follow the conditions as under: (i) He shall not tamper with any evidence, nor would influence the witnesses in the case. (ii) He shall submit his passport before the learned Trial Court. (iii) He shall not attempt to abscond and remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, until and unless exempted by the learned trial Court. (iv) Looking to the past record of the accused-petitioner, he shall regularly mark his attendance in the concerned Police Station on 25th day of every month during the trial of the case. Concerned S.H.O shall maintain the register to record the attendance of the accused-petitioner and default, if any, shall be immediately reported to the learned trail Court. 30. It is made clear that non-compliance of any of the above condition shall result in automatic cancellation of bail granted to the accused-petitioner.