Facts of the Case

The applicant, Dishu Jain, moved this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against a summoning order dated 02.11.2021 issued by the Superintendent, Central GST Commissionerate, Meerut, under Sections 70 and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. The amount allegedly involved was approximately Rs.6.18 crore, which, being above the Rs.5 crore threshold, would render the alleged offence non-bailable. The applicant relied on the fact that a co-accused, Rajat Maheshwari, a partner of the firm in question, had already been granted interim anticipatory bail on 17.12.2021, later confirmed on 06.01.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of the same Court. The applicant asserted parity with Rajat Maheshwari, no criminal antecedents, and willingness to cooperate with the GST Authorities during the proceedings.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicant, facing a summons under Sections 70 and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged evasion of about Rs.6.18 crore, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
  2. Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused partner on identical facts entitles the applicant to bail on the ground of parity.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The applicant's case is identical to that of co-accused Rajat Maheshwari, a partner of the same firm, who has already been granted anticipatory bail.
  • The applicant has no criminal history, as stated in the supporting affidavit.
  • The applicant assured full cooperation with the proceedings before the GST Authorities.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
  • It was submitted that there were chances of the applicant not cooperating with the department during the proceedings.
  • The respondents could not, however, dispute that co-accused Rajat Maheshwari had already been granted anticipatory bail, first on an interim basis and then confirmed.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted that co-accused Rajat Maheshwari, a partner in the firm, had already been granted anticipatory bail.
  • Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the nature of the accusation, the Court held the applicant entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.
  • Bail was granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,00,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: availability for interrogation, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no leaving India without the Court's permission (with passport, if any, to be deposited).
  • Liberty was given to the department to apply for cancellation of bail in case of breach of any condition.
  • The applicant was directed to produce a copy of the order before the concerned GST officer within a week.

Important Clarification

  • Parity with a co-accused who has already secured anticipatory bail on substantially similar facts can be a decisive ground for grant of bail, even where the alleged evasion amount exceeds the Rs.5 crore non-bailable threshold under the CGST Act.
  • Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is without any expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying allegations of tax evasion.

Sections Involved

  • Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — empowers courts to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.
  • Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 — power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.
  • Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 — punishment for specified offences, including fraudulent availment of input tax credit and evasion of tax.

Decision – In Favour of

The order is in favour of the applicant/accused. The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Dishu Jain on parity with a co-accused partner already granted bail, subject to standard conditions, without commenting on the merits of the underlying GST evasion allegations.

Related Case Laws

The judgment itself refers to the order granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Rajat Maheshwari (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail No. 19777 of 2021), on which parity was claimed, but no separate case note on that order is currently available on this site. No other related case laws are available on this site at present.

Case Details

  • Court: Allahabad High Court (Court No. 71)
  • Case No.: Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2819 of 2022
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Samit Gopal
  • Date of Order: 12.04.2022

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.