Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sohan Singh Rao S/O Late Shri Daulat ... 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. 2555/2022
Sohan Singh Rao S/o Late Shri Daulat Singh Rao, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Kalpatru Friends Colony Lalbagh Nathdwara
Rajsamand Raj. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)
----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 439
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),(L) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a simply
Director in the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. He is behind the
bars since 13.01.2022. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
also submits that in first complaint, there was not a single word
regarding alleged offence against the petitioner. Learned senior
counsel for the petitioner further submits that in supplementary
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM)
(2 of 7) [CRLMB-2555/2022]
complaint, only allegation of the offence based on the statement
of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also
submits that the petitioner had retracted from the statement.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Dananjay Singh
Versus Union Of India in which this Court has granted bail to
the Dananjay Singh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to the
Vinaykant Ameta. So, as a matter of parity, petitioner be enlarged
on bail.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that
in initial complaint, allegation was against the Vinaykant Ameta
not against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner also submits that the respondent's department does not
have adequate data for evasion of tax of Rs.869 Crores. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case
against the petitioner is on surmises and conjectures. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that maximum
punishment in this case is 5 years and case against the petitioner
is triable by Magistrate. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the respondent department had not seized
any unaccounted bill regarding packaging of tabacco in the
premises. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits
that they had deposited the amount of Rs.100 Crores and also
going to deposit another amount of Rs.100 Crores. Offence
against the petitioner is compoundable. Learned senior counsel for
the petitioner further submits that provision of Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case and Department had not taken
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM)
(3 of 7) [CRLMB-2555/2022]
leave from concerned Court for further investigation. Conclusion of
trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the following judgments:(1) Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate
General of GST Intelligence DGGI (Bail AppN.3771/2021
and Crl.M.A.16552/2021) decided on 26.11.2021; (2)
Dananjay Singh Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18825/2021 decided on
05.02.2022; (3) Naresh Chandra Jajra Vs. Union Of India in
S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1914/2022
decided on 25.02.2022; (4) M/s. Dhariwal Products Vs.
Union of India and ors. in D. B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2189/2022; (5) Ronak Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India in
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No.16083/2021 decided on 04.10.2021; (6) Lakshya
Agarwal Vs. DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit and anr. in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.20392/2021;
(7) Shri Amit Agrawal and Anr. Vs. Union Of India in S. B.
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5809/2021; (8) Khekh
Ram and Ors. Vs. NCB and Ors. In Criminal Appeal
No.450/2016 and 38 of 2017 decided on 29.12.2017; (9)
Yogesh Mittal Vs. Enforcement Directorate in bail
Application No.1165/2017 decided on 16.01.2018; (10)
Shobha Ram Vs. State Of U.P. reported in 1992 CRI. L.J.
1371 and (11) Yunis Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1999
CRI.L.J. 4094.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the petitioner and Vinay Kant Ameta were working
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM)
(4 of 7) [CRLMB-2555/2022]
as Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. He is responsible
for the tax evasion. Learned senior standing counsel for the
respondent also submitted that as per Investigation, total tax
evasion of Rs.869 Crores. Learned senior standing counsel for the
respondent further submitted that M/s Miraj Products Private
Limited had created the fake firm for tax evasion. Learned senior
standing counsel for the respondent also submitted that case of
the petitioner is not similar to the case of Dananjay Singh Vs.
Union Of India. Learned senior standing counsel for the
respondent further submitted that case of the petitioner is similar
to Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India and bail application
filed by the Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by this Court. Learned
senior standing counsel for the respondent also submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on
depositing of Rs.200 crores. Learned senior standing counsel for
the respondent further submitted that if the petitioner is ready to
deposit evasion of tax with penalty then he has no objection in
granting the bail. Learned senior standing counsel for the
respondent also submitted that department had summoned the
various persons of the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited Group
for investigation but they had not turned up for investigation till
today. So, on account of gravity of offence, bail be dismissed.
5. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondent has
placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Mahender
Mangal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No.13041/2021; (2) Lalit Goyal Vs. Union
Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
13042/2021; (3) Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union Of India in
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM)
(5 of 7) [CRLMB-2555/2022]
11339/2021; (4) Rishiraj Swami Vs. Union Of India in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11286/2021;
(5) Anil Kumar Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10608/2021; (6)
Abhishek Singal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6304/2021; (7)
Ramchandra Vishnoi Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13104/2021; (8)
Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18243/2021; (9) Ashok
Kumar Sihotiya Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9808/2021;(10)
Mahendra Saini Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7564/2021; (11) Sumit
Dutta Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.5371/2021;(12) Nimmagadda Prasad Vs.
CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466; (13) Rajesh Goyal Vs.
Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.726/2011; (14) Ram Narain Popli Vs. CBI
reported in 2003(1) SCR 119; (15) Serious Fraud
Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and Anr. In Criminal
Appeal No.1381/2019 decided on 12.09.2019; (16) P. V.
Ramana Reddy Vs. Union Of India & Ors. In SLP (Crl)
No.4430/2019 decided on 27.05.2019; (17) P. V. Raman
Reddy Vs. Union Of India in Writ Petition No.4764/2019
and other connected cases decided on 18.04.2019 by
Telegna High Court; (18) State Of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364; (19) Himani
Munjal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM)
(6 of 7) [CRLMB-2555/2022]
Bail Application No. 10350/2018; (20) Mukat Behari
Sharma Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No. 1238/2019; (21) Smt. Amal Mubarak
Salim Al Reiyami Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1870/2015 decided on
26.03.2015; (22) Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis
Chatterjee & Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.2086/2010
decided on 29.10.2010; (23) Bharat Raj Punj Vs.
Commissioner Of Central Goods and Service Tax in S.B.
Criminal Writ No.76/2019 decided on 12.03.2019; (24)
Suresh Sharma Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.7225/2014 decided on
26.06.2014 (25) Syed Mohammad Zama Vs. State Of
Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No. 11193/2014 decided on 05.01.2015; (26) P
Chidambaram Vs. Directorate Of Enforcement reported in
(2019) 9 SCC 24; (27) Ajaj Ahamad Vs. State Of Odisha
(CGST) reported in 2021 (53) G.S.T.L. 390 (Ori.); (28)
Prakash Chandra Purohit Vs. Union Of India and Ors. In D.
B. Civil Miscellaneous Stay Petition No.2754/2022; (29) Raj
Kumar Daitapati Vs. Director Enforcement in S. B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16124/2021 decided on
11.11.2021; (30) Wasim Qureshi Vs. State Of Rajasthan in
S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No.10921/2020 decided on 15.01.2021; (31) Vinay Kant
Ameta Vs. Union Of India in Criminal Appeal No.60/2022
decided on 10.01.2022; and (32) Mahender Mangal Vs.
Union Of India.
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM)
(7 of 7) [CRLMB-2555/2022]
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.
7. It is admitted position that the petitioner and Vinaykant Ameta were Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. As per the prosecution story, they had evaded tax of Rs. 869 Crores. GST department had seized one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. 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. Case of the petitioner is similar to the Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India and bail of the Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on depositing of Rs.200 Crores. 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 bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
8. Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/03 (Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:51:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)