C. B. Chauhan S/O Shri Devi Lal ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2550 Raj/2

        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

(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)

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)