Sohan Singh Rao S/O Late Shri ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2521 Raj/2

         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

(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

(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

(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.

(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

(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.

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)