Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ankit Bansal S/O Shri Shriniwas vs Union Of India on 18 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:23052]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4836/2025
Ankit Bansal S/o Shri Shriniwas, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
187/25, Naya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Sonipat, Haryana. (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur And In Custody Since 03.06.2025).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Directorate Of GST Intelligence (DGGI),
Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur Through Its Office At Banasthali
Vidhyapith, C-62, Sarojini Marg, Panch Batti, Ashok Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with
Mr. T.C. Sharma
Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi
Ms. Varuni Agarwal &
Mr. Siddhant Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing
Counsel for DGGI with
Mr. Jay Upadhyay
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)
Order
RESERVED ON ::: 10.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON ::: 18.06.2025
1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner
under section 483 of BNSS for seeking regular bail in respect of
FIR number DGGI/INT/ARM/5/2024-0/OADG/DGGI/JZU-JAIPUR
dated 03.06.2024, registered at office of DGGI, JZU, Jaipur for
offences punishable under section 132 (10(b)(c)(j) and (l) of
Central goods and services tax act 2017.
2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication
of the instant bail application are that officers of the Directorate
General of GST intelligence (hereinafter shall be referred as
‘DGGI’), while conducting investigation in relation to a firm,
namely M/S Om Sai Traders and Suppliers, it was indicated that
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (2 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
the Firm was engaged in trading of grains by showing exempted
supply in monthly GST returns(GSTR-3B) as well as in GSTR – 2A.
By analysing the bank accounts, it was observed that transactions
from different Firms mainly dealing in trade of scrap was shown in
the accounts. Whereas many of such Firms were Suo motu
cancelled by GST department on account of being fake/non-
existent Firms. Fictitious transactions were shown to have taken
place from such fake/non-existent firms. During course of
investigation, as many as 19 accounts were searched by DGGI,
carrying huge transaction amounting to Rs. 1800 crores in last
1-2 years and quite suspiciously there were cash transactions of
around 800 crores.
3. While making further searches under Section 67 (2) of the
CGST Act, 2017, it was found that one of such non-existent firm,
namely M/S Suraj trading company was also actively involved in
such fake and sham transactions. While tracing the address of
search firm, it was formed that address of one premises belonging
to Shri Vivek Garg was given in the record. When statements of
Shri Vivek Garg were recorded by DGGI, he informed that he had
been working for Shri Rajesh Goyal and Ankit Bansal (petitioner in
the instant case). On getting relevant information, on 03.05.2024,
DGGI also conducted search at the premises of the accused-
petitioner at Sonipat, Haryana, where so many incriminating
documents were found. Even statement of wife of the accused-
petitioner were recorded, who also admitted that her husband was
instrumental in creating fake GST firms.
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (3 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
4. During further searches conducted on 31.05.2024, huge
uncounted cash amount to the tune of Rs.2,41,86,000/- was
found and seized by DGGI and statements of Shri Rahul Tayal,
Pankaj Dayal, Ankit Rao Joshi, Gagan Tayal, Gaurav Jain and
Deepak Agarwal were recorded. Cumulative analysis of all such
statements was that the accused-petitioner along with one other
person was the kingpin of the Gang, who had created and
operated various fake firms for the sole purpose of availing and
passing on fraudulent ITC to their various clients and involved in
rotation of cash through the monetary transactions, ultimately in
order to avail fake Input Tax Credit (hereinafter to be referred as
ITC).
5. Further investigation in the matter revealed that the accused
petitioner along with Shri Rajesh Goyal was involved in creation of
at least 353 fake/non-existent firms with an intent to pass on
fraudulent ITC and in such process, they issued fake invoices/bills
without there being any actual supply of goods/ services. It has
been pointed out that during such process fake ITC of hundreds of
crores was passed on to various beneficiaries. DGGI also
succeeded in unearthing that the accused-petitioner was
instrumental in creating and managing fake firms by using identity
proof/pan cards belonging to some other persons, who had no
knowledge with regard to creation of such Firms.
6. While showing different misdeeds and fake transactions, the
DGGI levelled allegation of commission of offences relating to GST
evasion against the accused petitioner amounting to around
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (4 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
Rs. 704 crores, which is an offence under section 132(1)(b)(c)(j)
and (l) of Central goods and services tax Act, 2017.
7. The accused-petitioner has come out with a case in the
instant bail application that on 31.05.2024, when he was in a
meeting with some other persons at Haldiram, New Delhi, at
around 3:30 PM, various officers of DGGI with the help of local
police officers raided at Haldiram, where the petitioners and other
persons were sitting and abruptly arrested the petitioner. Even the
reason of arrest was not disclosed to the petitioner. Thereafter,
they created summons under CGST Act, on providing PAN card by
the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to appear in the office of
DGGI Jaipur unit on 01.06.2024 at 11 AM and the petitioner was
directed to sign the same. However, copy of the summons was not
given to him, nor was he allowed to inform to his family/ friends.
Then they took the petitioner as well as Shri Rajesh Goyal along
with them from Delhi to DGGI office, Jaipur, through one vehicle
Innova.
8. Shri S.S. Hora, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner
would submit that although the accused-petitioner was illegally
arrested on 31st May 2024, yet he was not produced before the
concerning Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest and in order to
validate such unconstitutional act, on papers his arrest has been
shown on 3rd June 2024. On 3rd June 2024 itself, the accused-
petitioner was produced before the Magistrate alongwith an
application for seeking remand of the accused-petitioner, which
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (5 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
was allowed by the concerned Court ignoring the defence put
forward by the Petitioner.
9. Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner would also
submit that the accused-petitioner was kept in illegal custody of
DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit from 31st May 2024 to 3rd May 2024 in
flagrant violation of section 69 of CGST Act 2017, as well as in
violation of provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
India. It has also been submitted that feeling aggrieved the
accused-petitioner filed SB Criminal Writ Petition No.1678/2024
before this Court levelling allegation of illegal arrest and
challenging the validity of the same, which is still pending before
this Court. During the pendency of aforesaid Writ Petition No.
1678/2024, the accused-petitioner filed regular bail application
under Section 483 BNNS before the Additional Session Judge
No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, who rejected the bail application
vide order dated 18th February 2025. Thereafter, the accused-
petitioner has approached this Court for seeking bail in the matter.
10. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner would further
submit that maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132
of CGST Act is five years and the alleged offences are triable by
Magistrate. He would submit that complaint in the form of charge-
sheet has already been filed on 31.07.2024, which denotes that
investigation in the matter is complete. Therefore, custodial
interrogation is not required from the accused-petitioner, whereas
Trial would take considerably long time.
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (6 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
11. Learned counsel has also indicated that co-accused Rajesh
Goyal has been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application no. 16113/2025 and claims that case of the accused-
petitioner is also similar to Shri Rajesh Goyal.
12. Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner added that no
show cause notice for adjudication under the provisions of CGST
Act was given to the accused-petitioner prior to his arrest, hence,
in absence of any adjudication, there was no occasion to assume
any Tax evasion or wrongfully availing ITC on the part of the
accused-petitioner.
13. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that even
compliance of provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was not made
prior to arrest other accused-petitioner; and in the matter of
alleged tax evasion arrest should not have been made, more
particularly when the accused-petitioner is not involved in
commission of any offence.
14. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that
although the accused-petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and an
ordinary businessman with no criminal antecedents, yet he has
been selectively targeted. Furthermore, the entire case is based
on documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of
the investigating agency and has already been filed before the
trial Court, hence, no further investigation is warranted in the
case. The accused-petitioner is said to be cooperating with the
authorities and undertakes to remain available for the trial. There
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (7 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
is no likelihood of his absconding; nor of fleeing from the process
of justice. Hence, he prayed for enlarging the accused-petitioner
on bail.
15. In order to press his submissions, learned counsel for the
accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgments delivered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vineet Jain v/s Union of
India (Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025, decided on 28.04.2025),
Ashutosh Garg v/s Union of India (SLP (Crl.) No. 8740/2024
decided on 26.07.2024), Ratnambar Kaushik v/s Union of
India (2023) 2 SCC 621, Yash Goyal v/s Union of India
(Criminal Appeal No.2784/2025 decided on 28.06.2024), Shekhar
Prasad Mahto v/s Registrar General (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
55/2025, A.Tajudeen Vs. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC 435,
Ayub Khan vs State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC Online SC 3763
and one order passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Raman
Bhuraia v/s Directorate of Enforcement 2023 SCC Online
Del 657. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon order
dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Mahesh Mittal vs Enforcement Direcotrate:S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13676/2024 decided on
04.02.2025.
16. Per contra, Shri Kinshuk Jain, learned Sr. Standing Counsel
for the GST Department has vehemently opposed the bail
application. He submits that the allegation of carrying out arrest
against the constitutional provisions, as alleged by the accused-
petitioner, are totally misconceived and unfounded. Under CGST
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (8 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
Act, the competent officer has got power to issue summons in
order to call any person for giving statements and such
statements are admissible in evidence. On the basis of material
collected by the DGGI during investigation and searches, it was
incumbent upon the officers of DGGI to record statements of the
accused-petitioner and accordingly, summons were issued strictly
in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2017 for appearing
before the Competent Authority. The accused-petitioner appeared
before the Authorities, where his statements were recorded by
making compliance of all the provisions with regard to recording
statements. On the basis of material on record, revealing
incriminating facts relating to creation of fake Firms and passing of
ITC in illegal manner, duly corroborated by the statements of the
Petitioner himself, the Competent Authority under GST Act was
satisfied that there were reasons to believe that offence u/s 132
(1) of the Act of 2017 has been committed, which are serious in
nature, hence, after following the due process the petitioner was
arrested on 3rd June, 2024 duly disclosing him the reasons to
arrest. Information with regard to his arrest was also immediately
given to the family of accused-petitioner and without wasting any
further time, he was immediately produced before the concerned
Court alongwith an application for demanding remand of the
accused-petitioner, as so many other significant facts and
important material were required to be investigated. Remand
Application was allowed by the concerned Court.
17. Learned counsel for the DGGI also submitted that alleged
validity of arrest proceedings are already under scrutiny of this
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (9 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
Court in the above referred Criminal Writ Petition, where a
detailed reply to the writ petition on behalf of DGGI has been filed
categorically denying the allegations levelled by the accused-
petitioner.
18. Learned Counsel for DGGI also highlighted that the alleged
economic offence is of a grave magnitude involving evasion of Rs.
704 Crores, striking at the very core of India’s tax administration.
He also emphasized that the fraud was not an isolated event but
part of a well-engineered conspiracy to defraud the Government
exchequer, thereby undermining the integrity of the indirect tax
regime. The accused-petitioner is a pivotal figure in a nexus of
interlinked entities created solely to facilitate this large-scale tax
evasion.
19. Learned counsel for DGGI further added that prosecution’s
case, as emerging from the complaint filed by the Department,
would specifically point out that the accused-petitioner, through a
network of dummy firms and fictitious invoices, orchestrated a tax
evasion scheme by generating fake instruments, thereby creating
an alleged picture of legitimate transactions with the sole intention
of siphoning off statutory tax credit in utter violation of the CGST
framework.
20. While drawing indulgence of this court on Section 132 of the
CGST Act submits that the aforementioned provision enumerates a
series of offences involving fraudulent tax activities. Notably,
clause (i) of sub-section (1) provides that in cases where the
amount of tax evaded or input tax credit wrongly availed exceeds
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (10 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
Rs.5 crores, the offence is deemed cognizable and non-bailable, as
per sub-section (5). Thus, the legislative intent is explicitly clear
that the economic offences of a significant magnitude are to be
treated with a higher threshold of scrutiny, even at the stage of
bail. He further added that the CGST Act, being a fiscal statute,
mandates strict compliance in its enforcement and any leniency
shown in such grave matters of public finance would encourage
other tax evaders also and erode public confidence in institutional
mechanisms.
21. Learned counsel for DGGI would also submit that White
collar crimes like the present one, though non-violent in nature,
are to be treated with seriousness and severity by the Courts due
to their far-reaching socio-economic impact.
22. Learned counsel for the DGGI has also submitted that even
otherwise bail is a discretionary remedy and apart from other
factors like gravity of offences and severity of allegations, conduct
of the accused-petitioner is also a significant and indispensable
factor at the time of consideration of bail application. While
highlighting the aforesaid point, learned counsel has submitted
that in the Bail Application, the accused-petitioner has come out
with misleading, incomplete and distorted facts. Accused-
petitioner has stated in the application, that he is not involved in
commission of any other offence, which is factually incorrect and
is a deliberate act on the part of the Petitioner to seek relief by
keeping this Court in dark. He has indicated that in para L
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (11 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
(page 20) of the instant Bail Application the accused-petitioner
has stated as under:
“L…………..Whereas in the present case of the accused-
petitioner is totally innocent, the Petitioner is not
involved in commission of any other offence nor has
been prosecuted or convicted on earlier occasion…….”
23. Learned Counsel for DGGI has also placed before the Court
that much before registration of the case in question against the
accused-petitioner, on 23.08.2021, an FIR was lodged against the
accused-petitioner bearing Cr. No.3/2021, by the Cyber Crime
Office Perambalur for committing an offence under Section 66D of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 420 of IPC. He
was arrested and kept in judicial custody for more than 32 days
and thereafter, he was enlarged on bail vide order dated
05.09.2022 passed by the Court of Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Perambalur in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2037/2022. While
referring concealment of the aforesaid Criminal Case by the
accused-petitioner in the Bail Application, learned counsel for
DGGI would submit that discretionary remedy of bail may not be
extended to a person, who has not come out with clean hands
before the Court and has mischievously suppressed the relevant
fact.
24. While pressing the submissions with regard to questionable
conduct of the accused-petitioner, learned counsel for the DGGI
has also submitted that during custody of the accused-petitioner
and during pendency of the instant bail application, he has
audaciously attempted to abscond from the custody and to flee
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (12 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
away from the process of justice. Learned Counsel in order to
elaborate his submission in this regard has submitted that on
24.05.2025 certain under trial prisoners, including the accused-
petitioner, who were being brought to SMS Hospital, Jaipur from
the Central Jail for medical treatment had planned to escape. On
receiving this information, when search and necessary enquiry
was conducted, it was found from the police guard that the
accused-petitioner alongwith other under trial prisoners although
arrived at the hospital premises under guard, but had escaped,
with the connivance of Four guards and help of his family
members. Despite extensive efforts, neither the accused persons
nor the police guards accompanying them were located. The police
vehicle was traced, but no person was present inside. It was
submitted that under the routine procedure, prisoners are brought
from Central Jail Jaipur to SMS Hospital for treatment under police
guard, and are then returned to jail after treatment. After
extensive search and efforts, accused-petitioner was apprehended
by Police Station Airport. In this regard, an FIR No. 0076/2025
dated 24.05.2025 was registered with the Police Station, SMS
Hospital, Jaipur for committing an offence under Sections 261 and
262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). In the aforesaid case,
apart from the accused-petitioner, four police Guards were also
arrested.
25. Learned counsel for DGGI while placing the aforesaid facts,
has submitted that the accused-petitioner is an influential person
and has misused his power, contacts and other resources,
whereby he had made serious attempts to disappear from the
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (13 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
custody during the pendency of the instant Bail application.
Hence, looking to his conduct, he is not entitled for Bail and
prayed for rejection of the Bail Application.
26. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for DGGI has
relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439,
Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364,
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, (2019) 9
SCC 165, State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat
Vetal(2004) 7 SCC 521, Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh &
Anr.(2012) 9 SCC 446.
27. I have carefully heard the rival submissions made at the Bar
and considered the record.
28. Bare reading the complaint would reveal that there are
serious allegations against the accused-petitioner of creation of at
353 fake/non-existing Firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on
the basis of alleged supply shown in fake invoice and thereby
passing on fake ITC to various beneficiaries. Magnitude of such
fake ITC and tax evasion is also quite high around Rs. 704 Crores,
which is likely to affect the economy to a great extent. Offences
alleged against the Petitioners evidently fall within the purview of
economic offences.
29. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that economic
offences constitute a distinct class of crime. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy (supra.), the Apex Court observed as under:-
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (14 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
“Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds need to be
viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole.”
30. Similarly, in Nimmagadda Prasad (supra.), the Apex
Court underscored that economic offences are more serious than
ordinary crimes because they involve deliberate design with an
eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to public
interest.
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs
Directorate of Enforcement (2018)11 SCC 46, while following
the judgment in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra.)
categorically held that white-collar crimes are more dangerous to
society than ordinary crimes, as they are committed with
deliberate calculation, breach of trust, and often result in
significant financial loss to the public exchequer. The Court
emphasized that such offences are deep-rooted economic
conspiracies involving abuse of official positions and must not be
treated leniently merely because they are non-violent.
32. In State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal,
(supra.), the Apex Court observed that economic offences
corrode the fabric of democracy and are committed with cool
calculation and deliberate design, and hence, courts must deal
with such offences with a firm hand.
33. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari,
(supra.), the Court reiterated that in white-collar crimes, the
larger public interest and economic stability of the nation are at
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (15 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
stake, and the status, influence, or clean antecedents of the
accused alone cannot justify the grant of bail.
34. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has heavily relied
upon the judgment of Vineet Jain (supra.) and submits that
offence alleged against him are virtually similar as considered in
the said case, hence, principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court are applicable in his case
also, therefore, the accused-petitioner is entitled to Bail. In
Vineet Jain v. Union of India (supra.) Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed as under:
“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. By setting aside the impugned order
dated 24th January, 2025 of the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, we grant bail to the
appellant. The appellant shall be immediately produced
before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall enlarge
him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (16 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]conclusion of the trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. Fair reading of the judgment in the case of Vineet Jain
(supra.) would reveal that the aforesaid judgment does not
confer absolute right of Bail upon an accused facing allegations
under CGST Act, despite the offence being triable by Magistrate
and the maximum prescribed punishment for such offence is five
years. The aforesaid precedent indeed aids in interpreting CGST
bail jurisprudence, but it is also clear that its principles apply when
“no extraordinary facts” counterbalance the presumption in favour
of bail. Two exceptions can apparently be spelt out from the
apparent judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are
as under:-
(i) Person having criminal antecedents can be denied bail.
(ii) In a matter involving extraordinary circumstances also,
the accused person is not entitled to bail.
36. On examination of High Court Judgment in the case Vineet
Jain, it would reveal that the allegations against Vineet Jain
were of tax evasion amounting to Rs. 10.87 Crore and there were
no criminal antecedents against him, only therefore, with the
above observations bail was admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
37. When facts of the instant case were examined at the
touchstone of the principles laid down in the case of Vineet Jain
(supra.), it emerged that there are clear and manifest
antecedents against the petitioner (which have been suppressed
by the petitioner) and the magnitude of allegations against him is
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (17 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
quite higher, which is crossing more than 700 Crores. Since during
the pendency of instant bail application, the accused-petitioner
has attempted to abscond, which evidently involves extraordinary
circumstances.
38. This Court has also gone through the other judgments cited
on behalf of the accused-petitioner in the cases of Ratnambar
Kaushik (supra.), Yash Goyal(supra.), Shekhar Prasad
Mahto (supra.), A. Tajudeen (supra.), Ayub Khan(supra.),
Aman Bhuraia (supra.) and Mahesh Mittal (supra.). However,
in all the above cases, there was clear cut distinction on facts and
in none of the cases relied upon by the accused-petitioner, there
were allegations against the accused regarding concealing the
antecedents and of making a serious attempt to abscond from the
custody and process of justice. Contention of the Petitioner that
co-accused Rajesh Goyal has been enlarged on bail by coordinate
Bench of this Court is also of no help to the accused-petitioner, as
the facts touching the conduct of the accused in the case of the
accused-petitioner and of Rajesh Goyal are altogether different.
There are no allegations of having criminal antecedents against
Rajesh Goyal, nor has he been facing either the allegations of
concealment of facts, or even the allegations of making an
attempt to flee away from the custody during bail application. It is
axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of
positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution. However, while applying principle of parity in the
cases of Bail applications, the court is required to focus on conduct
and role of the accused, whose application is under consideration.
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (18 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
As observed and highlighted above, conduct of the petitioner does
not confer any right upon him to pray for bail in the instant case.
39. In the instant case, conduct of the accused-petitioner would
in itself dis-entitle him from seeking relief of bail, as he has not
only suppressed the facts regarding his antecedents, which are
evidently having material bearing at the time of consideration of
bail, but admittedly he has also made a serious attempt to flee
away from the custody during pendency of the instant Bail
Application by using his influence and power. Hence, in the light of
above possibility of his absconding and influencing the witnesses
can not be ruled out.
40. It is a settled position in law that the conduct of the accused
is a relevant and significant consideration in deciding a bail
application, especially in cases involving economic offences, which
are considered grave and affecting public interest at large. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram
Popat Vetal (supra.), clearly laid down that apart from the
gravity of the offence, the court must also examine the conduct of
the accused during investigation and prosecution. Which can
certainly provide valuable insight regarding likelihood of the
accused to misuse bail.
41. In the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh & Anr.
(2012) 9 SCC 446, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that
conduct of the accused and antecedents are relevant factors for
grant/denial of bail.
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (19 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
42. Specifically for economic offences, the Supreme Court in Y.S.
Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra.), held that economic offences
involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss to the public
exchequer require a different approach, and character of the
accused, the likelihood of the accused interfering with the
investigation or repeating such offences based on their past
conduct is a vital consideration.
43. Similarly, in Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (supra), the
Apex Court indicated that economic offences have far-reaching
consequences and the accused’s behaviour during investigation,
including non-cooperation or attempts to delay proceedings, must
be assessed while deciding bail.
44. Thus, in economic offences, where the accused is often well
resourced and capable of manipulating evidence or evading
process, their past and present conduct becomes a crucial factor
that cannot be ignored while exercising judicial discretion for bail.
45. Concealment of relevant fact regarding antecedents in itself
is a sufficient ground for denying discretionary relief of Bail to the
petitioner without even examining merits of entering into the
merits of the case. Recently in the case of Munnesh vs State of
Uttar Pradesh, decided on 03/04/2025 (2025 SCC online SC
1319), Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken non-disclosure of
antecedents in Bail Application quite seriously and by treating
such non-disclosure as suppression of fact, discretionary relief of
Bail has been denied only on this ground.
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23052] (20 of 20) [CRLMB-4836/2025]
46. It is no longer res-integra that it is necessary to assess the
accused’s propensity to abscond, at the time of consideration of
the bail application. In view of the facts of the instant case, where
the petitioner has attempted to abscond, he is not entitled to bail.
47. Needless to mention that where the amount involved runs
into hundreds of crores and has serious implications over the
economic fabric of the country, it cannot be said to be a routine
matter; and hence, quantum is directly relevant in assessing the
seriousness of the offence and the necessity of custody. Therefore,
when determining bail in economic offences, the magnitude of the
siphoned amount is not merely incidental but rather an integral
indicator of the severity of the offence, potential influence over
witnesses or the system, and the possible adverse impact on
public confidence in financial integrity and the rule of law.
48. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the accused-
petitioner hereby stands dismissed.
49. However, it is made clear that the observations herein are
only for the purpose of adjudication of this bail application and
shall not influence the trial proceedings in any manner.
50. Since while rejecting the Bail Application, custody of the
accused-petitioner is resultantly continued, the Trial Court is
expected to conclude the Trial within a reasonable time, ensuring
right of the accused petitioner regarding speedy trial as
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)),J
pcg /328(s)
(Downloaded on 24/06/2025 at 09:35:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)