2025 (7) TMI 983 - HC - GST

Petitioner granted bail in GST fraud case under RGST Act Sections 132(1)(a)(b)(c), 132(1)(i), 132(5) on Rs.1 lakh bond

Rajasthan HC granted bail to petitioner charged under Sections 132(1)(a)(b)(c), 132(1)(i), 132(5) of RGST Act, 2017. Court considered SC precedents in ... Seeking grant of bail - offences u/s 132(1)(a)(b) (c), 132(1)(i), 132(5) of Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the ratio decidendi laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineet Jain [2025 (5) TMI 925 - SC ORDER] and Ratnambar Kaushik [2022 (12) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT] and the fact that petitioner has been arrested in respect of offences under Sections 132(1)(a)(b)(c), 132(1)(i), 132(5) of RGST Act, 2017, wherein maximum punishment is of five years; petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed; no criminal antecedents of similar nature of offences has been stated to be against the petitioner; conclusion of trial will take considerable time, but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail, however the petitioner is directed to cooperate during trial. The bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vikas Sain S/o Sh. Ganpat Lal Sain shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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. The Rajasthan High Court, through Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudesh Bansal, allowed the bail application of the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with offences under Sections 132(1)(a)(b)(c), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ratio in Vineet Jain v. Union of India [S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4349/2025] and Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1678], emphasizing that:- The petitioner was in custody since 04.04.2025 and charge-sheet had been filed;- The maximum punishment prescribed is imprisonment up to five years and fine;- The petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents of similar nature;- Evidence in such cases is primarily documentary and electronic, reducing risks of tampering or intimidation;- The trial would take considerable time and the petitioner must cooperate diligently.Accordingly, the Court held it 'just and proper to release the petitioner on bail,' subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, ensuring the petitioner's attendance at trial.