Rajasthan High Court
Dananjay Singh S/O Shri Hari ... vs Union Of India on 5 February, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18825/2021
Dananjay Singh S/o Shri Hari Sharan Singh, Aged About 50
Years, Director M/s Montage Packaging Sales Pvt Ltd R/o 514
Block-A Gaur Valerio Apartment Ahinsa Khand-2 Opposite Dps
School Indirapuram Gaziabad U.p.
At Present Accused Is In J.c. And Confined In Central Jail Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Special Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Counsel
with Mr. S. S. Hora, Adv. through VC
Mr. Arun K. Singh, Adv. through VC
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. through VC
Mr. Clevans Cletus, Adv. through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing
Counsel for DGGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
05/02/2022
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/MISC/433/2021-GR-H-O/O
ADG-DGGI-ZU-JAIPUR Registered At Directorate General of GST
Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur for the offence(s)
under Sections 132 (1) (B) (H) (I) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is behind the bars
since 24.10.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the complaint against the petitioner was filed on
(2 of 7) [CRLMB-18825/2021]
22.12.2021 and cognizance against the petitioner was taken on
21.01.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that as per complaint, complainant does not disclose the complete
investigation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that as per GST Act, incomplete charge-
sheet cannot be filed against the petitioner. After that there is no
occasion that complainant can file full charge-sheet. So,
complainant also claimed the bail on the ground under Section
167(2) Cr. P. C. as a default bail. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that as per contention of the
complainant that the petitioner had supplied packaging material to
the seven firms which are fake. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner had paid GST as per the Act.
So, there is no breach of Section 132 of the GST. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also submits that show cause notice was not
given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that as per the GST Act, appeal can be filed by depositing
10 per cent of the assessed amount. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that the persons of the complainant had
mis-behavied with Rohit Kumar and he had filed a writ before the
high court for ill-treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that in this case, no valid sanction has been given against
the petitioner for filing of the complaint. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that the complainant had not made
accused to so called seven fake firms. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that as per the GST Act, these firms are
registered. So, it cannot be said that these firms are fake. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had not
(3 of 7) [CRLMB-18825/2021]
claimed any input tax credit and conclusion of trial may take long
time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the following judgments: (1) Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State Of
Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67; (2) Ram Kumar Vs.
State Of Haryana reported in (1987) 1 SCC 476; (3) State,
CBI Vs. Sashi Balasubramanian reported in (2006) 13 SCC
252 62; (4) State of T. N. Vs. M. M. Rajendran (1998) 9 SCC
268; (5) Natabar Parida Vs. State Of Orrisa reported in
(1975) 2 SCC 220; (6) Union Of India Vs. Thamisharasi
reported in (1995) 4 SCC 190; (7) CBI Vs. Anupam J
Kulkarni, 1992(2) 3 SCC 141; (8) M. Ravindran Vs.
Directorate of Revenuu Intelligence reported in (2021) 2
SCC 485; (9) Ram Narayan Singh Vs. State Of Delhi
reported in 1953 SCR 652 153; (10) Mohd. Iqbal Sheikh Vs.
State Of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 1 SCC 722; (11)
Kalmesh Chaudhary Vs. State Of Rajasthan in Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16464/2019; (12)
Kalmesh Chaudhary Vs. The State Of Rajasthan in Criminal
Appeal No.15/2021; (13) Pradeep Kumar Bansal Vs. U.O.I
through Commissioner CGST, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12093/2020; (14) Anil
Kumar Gupta Vs. U.O.I. Through Inspector (Anti Evasion)
CGST in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No.15605/2020; (15) Hemant Kumar Singhal Vs. U.O.I,
through Commissioner CGST, Alwar in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8676/2020; (16)
(4 of 7) [CRLMB-18825/2021]
Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya @ Golu Vs. U.O.I. through
Commissioner CGST, Alwar in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No.8676/2020 and (17) Gaurav Kumar
Aanchaliya Vs. U.O.I. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.3624/2019.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has
opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had created the fake
seven firms and claimed input tax credit of Rs.16,99,89,923
(Sixteen Crores Ninety Nine lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Nine
Hundred and Twenty Three). He had issued the invoices of Rs.
94,43,88,462/-(Ninety Four Crores Forty Three Lacs Eighty Eight
Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Two). Learned Senior Standing
Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in various
pronouncement clearly specified that the matter of economic
offences should be dealt strictly not as any other criminal
offences. Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that
Investigating against the fake firms is still pending. Petitioner and
other persons are not co-operating in the investigation. Learned
Senior Standing Counsel further submits that it is not a case of
default bail because investigation against the petitioner has been
completed and complaint has been filed against the petitioner.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel also submits that the petitioner
is not entitled for the default bail and looking to the gravity of
offence, bail be dismissed.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has
placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Mahender
(5 of 7) [CRLMB-18825/2021]
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.
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)
(6 of 7) [CRLMB-18825/2021]
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
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 and (25) Syed Mohammad Zama Vs. State Of
Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No. 11193/2014 decided on 05.01.2015.
6. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the
petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner
on bail.
(7 of 7) [CRLMB-18825/2021]
7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dananjay
Singh S/o Shri Hari Sharan Singh shall be enlarged on bail
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned
on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
