TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Directorate General of GST Intelligence Versus Sanjay Jaglan - 2025 (6) TMI 995 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that cancellation of bail is not justified in absence of supervening circumstances, especially when no complaint is filed and the accused has deposited more than 10% of the disputed ITC liability & fulfilled all the pre-conditions for grant of bail.
Facts:
Directorate General of GST Intelligence (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the bail order dated December 17, 2019 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
Sanjay Jaglan (“the Respondent”) was arrested on December 01, 2019 for allegedly availing fraudulent input tax credit (“ITC”) of ₹33.75 crores through his company M/s R.R. India Pvt. Ltd. by using fake invoices from non-existent firms claiming supply of manpower services. He was granted bail upon depositing ₹1 crore with the department and undertaking to deposit an additional ₹3 crores by December 24, 2019. The Respondent also submitted original property documents worth ₹40.76 crores to show bonafide intent.
The Petitioner contended that the Respondent was also involved in a separate case under Ghaziabad Commissionerate and a prosecution proposal was under process. They submitted that granting bail at an early stage without considering these aspects was erroneous. The Respondent contended that no complaint had been filed since the investigation commenced in 2019, and no condition of bail had been violated.
Issue:
Whether bail granted to the Respondent-assessee under Section 132 of the CGST Act can be cancelled in the absence of any complaint, supervening circumstances, or violation of bail conditions?
Held:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Directorate General of GST Intelligence Versus Sanjay Jaglan - 2025 (6) TMI 995 - DELHI HIGH COURTheld as under:
- Observed that, no criminal complaint has been filed against the Respondent despite the investigation commencing in 2019, and had he been in custody, he would have been entitled to default bail.
- Noted that, the Department’s own record shows that ₹4 crores were deposited by the Respondent pursuant to the bail order, an amount exceeding 10% of the alleged ITC fraud.
- Held that, there are no supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail, and no evidence was shown of misuse of liberty or interference with investigation.
- Further found that, the original order granting bail did not record any objection from the Department’s counsel.
- Held that, the Respondent had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- Accordingly, dismissed the petition and held that the bail granted earlier shall continue, subject to the conditions in the original bail order.
(Author can be reached at [email protected])