TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Anti Evasion), Sri Shikhar Khare, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/Union of India and perused the record. 3. Admittedly the applicant is a Chinese national. She is in jail since 26.8.2025. This is an application for bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S., 2023. The question as would arise in the matter is as to whether the applicant still holds a valid Visa or not as in case of her release, the question of her stay in the country without a valid Visa would be a matter to be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to disclose regarding status of Visa of the applicant for which he prays for a week's time to inform the Court about it. Prayer is allowed. 5. List on 21.01.2026 as fresh." 5. Subsequently learned counsel for the Union of India further sought time for compliance of the said order on 30.01.2026 and the following order was passed: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egularization of the earlier overstay of such foreign nationals. 9. In respect of a foreign national against whom one or more cases are pending, it is humbly submitted/apprised that visa applications of such foreign nationals were being kept on hold or denied as per guidelines of Bureau of Immigration pertaining to undertrial foreign nationals seeking visa services vide their Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2023. The applicant foreign national had applied for visa extension on 06.08.2023 which was denied by this office as per the above guidelines issued by the Bureau of Immigration at the time. The applicant was intimated about the closure of the said application on his registered e mail i.d on 10.08.2023. 10. However, as per latest guidelines from Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) i.e., Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2025 (in respect to visa applications of undertrial foreign nationals whose presence is required in India to attend the court proceedings), FRRO concerned may grant X-Mise Visa after following due procedures and conducting necessary enquiries, with prior approval of the Bureau of Immigration." 7. Further while placing para 11 of the same it is submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India and another) which was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2025. The Apex Court in para 20 and 21 of the same directed that the petitioner should immediately apply for bail before the court concerned in accordance with law and further directed that if once any bail application is filed, the court concerned shall look into it expeditiously on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced in any way by the facts that the Court declined to entertain the Article 32 petition. The order passed therein reads as under: "1. Exemption Applications are allowed. 2. The petitioner before us is a Chinese national. 3. She has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground that her arrest by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Taxes (for short, "the CGST"), Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Greater Noida for the alleged offences as mentioned in the Arrest Memo dated 26-8-2025 could be termed as illegal and thereby violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is her case that although she may be a foreign national yet as she has been arrested in India, she is entitled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnished could also be termed as just an eye wash. 17. In such circumstances, he submitted that the arrest of the petitioner be declared as illegal and she may be ordered to be released forthwith. 18. On the other hand, Ms. Bhati, the learned ASG would submit that the investigation is at a nascent stage. There is some prima facie material on the basis of which the petitioner was arrested. She would submit that the arrest cannot be termed in any manner as illegal or violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that it is difficult for us to say that the very arrest of the petitioner was illegal. 20. We may only say that the petitioner should immediately apply for bail before the Court concerned in accordance with law. 21. Once any bail application is filed, the Court concerned shall look into it expeditiously on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced in any way by the fact that this Court declined to entertain the Article 32 petition. 22. It is needless to clarify that the bai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Union of India. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2025 under Sections 132(1)(d), 132(1)(e), 132 (1) (f), 132 (1) (I), 132 (1) (i) of CGST Act 2017 Police Station CGST Commissionerate District Gautam Budh Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits as per allegation applicant was one of the Director of M/s Tentech LED Display Pvt Ltd and he along with other accused committed evasion of GST in tune of more than eleven crores but entire allegation against him is totally false. 5. He further submitted that even for the alleged offences maximum five years punishment is provided and applicant is in jail since 26.08.2025 i.e. last more than three months and even alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. 6. He further submits, after investigation complaint has been filed and as entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence, therefore, there is no likelihood that trial will conclude in near future. 7. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for DG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Vineet Jain vs. Union of India MANU/SCOR/38321/2025 while granting bail to accused under the provisions of C.G.S.T. Act observed as:- "......The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances......" 15. Therefore, from the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Vineet Jain (supra) it reflects, ordinarily an accused should be released on bail for offence under Section 132(1) C.G.S.T. Act. 16. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se relating to an economic offence and time and again it has been held and stated that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited in a different approach in matters of bail. The following judgments have been placed before the Court in the case of Ram Narain Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : Crl. Appeal No. 1097 of 1999, decided on 14.01.2003, Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., Hyderabad : AIR 2013 SC 2831, Serious Fraud Investigation Vs. Nittin Jokari : Crl. Appeal No. 1381 of 2019 decided on 12.09.2019, Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Agarwal ; Crl. Appeal No. 1575 of 2008 decided on 03.10.2008, Radheyshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal ; Crl. A. No. 1097 of 2003 decided on 18.02.2011, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI ; Crl. A. No. 730 of 2013 decided on 09.05.2013, Govind Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. ; C.R.P.C. 438 No. 1337 of 2020, Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union of India ; Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 726 of 2011 (Rajasthan). (iv) Thus the prayer for bail be rejected. 13. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant has been arrested as being an accused in a matter relating to eva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. (vii) The applicant shall file a certificate before the trial court of the Chinese Embassy concerned of which the applicant is national, which shall ensure through the said certificate to the trial court that the applicant shall appear on each and every date before the trial court concerned in the proceedings of trial. (viii) The applicant shall ....