TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (DGGI), Ghaziabad Regional Unit through Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Shri Kamlesh Mishra and others, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "CGST Act, 2017"), DGGI Ghaziabad. The applicant-Kamlesh Mishra is in custody since arrest on 20.05.2025, whereas applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg were arrested on 21.5.2025. 2. The facts in brief leading to the applications are that the Director General of GST Intelligence (in short "DGGI Ghaziabad"), Regional Unit Ghaziabad instituted a complaint dated 18th July, 2025 against 28 accused persons, through Senior Intelligence Officer namely Sandeep Thapliyal, wherein it is alleged that an intelligence input regarding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended the concession of regular bail vide orders dated 25.2.2025 and 11.3.2025. 3. Further, the secret data maintained by Vikrant Singhal revealed that Kamlesh Mishra, Sagar Garg and Rohit Garg are key persons, who had arranged fake firms for passing on fake ITC and arranged purchase bills for the fake firms. These accused were also actively involved with Vikrant Singhal, and had passed on fake ITC without supply of concomitant goods, and a search was also conducted at their residential and business premises. Accused Kamlesh Mishra in his statement under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 recorded on 19.5.2025, admitted that the name "Mishra" in the google data refers to him, who also confessed that he was involved in fake billing and had been r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agar Garg were refused the concession of regular bail vide order(s) dated 5th July, 2025. Hence, these applications. 5. Pursuant to the advance notice, Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for Union of India-opposite party had appeared and filed his counter affidavit dated 12th August, 2025. 6. Learned counsels for applicants have argued that the allegations in the complaint dated 18th July, 2025 by Senior Intelligence Officer, CGST are against the accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar, and a complaint dated 13th December, 2024 already stands filed against them, and six others for the same offences, which is pending adjudication. Learned counsels have argued that the secret information also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GST Act, 2017, and the recovery of money from their premises cannot be taken as a reliable evidence to even prima facie show their involvement in the commission of crime, which is attributed to other accused persons namely Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gaurav Jain. Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of applicant-Kamlesh Mishra recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 to point out that even he has not named the applicants-Rohit Garg and Sagar Garg, as the persons involved in the commission of crime, therefore, at least the case of these two applicants is entirely distinguishable from other accused persons. 9. Learned counsels have argued that the co-accused Pradeep Kumar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the applicants are in fact not strictly their co-accused. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to the complainant, the secret information was received by the prosecuting department against four persons namely Vikrant Singhat, Sachin Singhal, Gaurav Jain and Pradeep Kumar, and acting upon the said information, raids were conducted leading to the recovery of incriminating material. Admittedly, the complaint bearing No. 1101 of 2024 against these accused persons except Pradeep Kumar and six others was filed on 13th December, 2024, whereas the subject complaint dated 18th July, 2025 comes as continuation of the said earlier complaint. Further, the compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustody since their arrest. The complaint/charge sheet dated 18th July, 2025 has been filed against the accused persons, but the trial is yet to commence, as even the charges against the accused has not been framed so far, therefore, their further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose. 15. Most importantly, the case of the prosecution is either founded upon the documentary evidence, or confession of the accused-applicants, and the admissibility of the said confessional statements would be tested during trial in light of the other prosecution evidence. Further, the majority of the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses, and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. 16. Thu....