Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
C. B. Chauhan S/O Shri Devi Lal Chauhan vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2556/2022
C. B. Chauhan S/o Shri Devi Lal Chauhan, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o 504 Miraj Complex Upar Ki Oden Nathdwara Distt.
Rajsamand Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Special Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Senior Adv. with
Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. &
Mr. Snehdeep Khyaliya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing
Counsel for DGGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 22/03/2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 24/03/2022
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/GST/2916/2021-Gr-K-O/o
DD-DGGI/RU-Udaipur, relating to offence punishable under
Sections 132 (1)(a), (f),(h),(i),(1) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is a simply
salaried person in the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. Nothing
is to be recovered from the petitioner. In previous complaints
which were filed against co-accused, role of the petitioner is not
defined. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner
had joined the investigation and his statement was recorded on
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2556/2022]
18.11.2021. He has retracted from his statement on 14.01.2022.
In first complaint, role of the petitioner was not found in alleged
evasion of tax. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also
submits that in reply, respondent stated that investigation is going
against the petitioner but final conclusion is yet to be arrived.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Learned
senior counsel also submits that similar co-accused Vinaykant
Ameta was enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court. So, the
petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Bail
Application No.3771/2021 & CRL.M.A. No. 16522/2021
titled as "Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General Of GST
Intelligence DGGI" decided on 26.11.2021.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner
and submitted that the petitioner is economic offender and Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncement stated that the economic offender should be dealt separately not as ordinarily offender. Learned senior standing counsel for further submitted that anticipatory bail in economic offences is not maintainable. So, anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
5. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) P. Chidambaram Vs. Director Of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 (2) Rajkumar Daitapati Vs. Director Enforcement in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16124/2021 decided on 11.11.2021 and (3) (Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2556/2022] Prakash Chandra Purohit Vs. Union Of India in D. B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.2754/2022.
6. It is admitted position that raid was conducted in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited and as per the story of the prosecution, there is evasion of tax of Rs.869 Crores. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
8. Hence, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/04 (Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)