Allowed

Amit Agarwal Alias Vicky Bhalotia v. Union of India Represented by Shri Dinesh Kumar

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2024B.A./569/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under GST evasion complaint alleging Rs. 48.19 crore tax evasion over three years; charge already framed and maximum sentence five years. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent on custody duration and released the petitioner on bail with conditions including cooperation with investigation and an undertaking not to influence the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 100,000 with two like sureties, subject to cooperation with investigation and undertakings.

Amit Agarwal Alias Vicky Bhalotia Vs Union of India… — GST and Indirect Tax | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A No. 569 of 2024

¶3

Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia ----Petitioner Versus Union of India represented by Shri Dinesh Kumar ----Opp. Party --CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶4

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

¶5

Mr. N.K. Pasari, Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocates For the O.P-UoI: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Sr. Standing Counsel

¶6

--- I.A. No. 3000 of 2024

¶7

¶8

04 / 02.04.2024 This interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this case. As the matter has been taken up, this interlocutory application has become infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Complaint Case No. 5760 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c) and 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, pending in the court of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur.

¶11

Petitioner is said to have evaded GST worth Rs. 48.19 crore for three financial years.

¶12

It was submitted that after submission of the prosecution report, charge has been framed against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the offences alleged is punishable for the maximum period of five years and it will take considerable period for the trial to be concluded. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik versus Union of India reported in [(2023) 2 SCC 621] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the allegation relating to evasion of tax resulting in initiation of proceedings under sections 132 (1)(a), (h), (k) and (I) read with section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the maximum punishment for the alleged crime is for a period of five years. It was further held that if the accused has remained in custody for four months, he may be released on bail.

¶13

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, submitted that during the course of investigation, one of the witnesses has given statement that co-accused persons were trying to influence the investigation by persuading him not to disclose the name of the co-accused

¶14

¶15

persons before the Investigating Agency. It was further submitted that charge has been framed in this case and the petitioner will be further required to be interrogated as new facts has come during course of investigation. 6. Considering the fact that the maximum punishment for the offence under sections 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c) and 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act is five years and charge has already been framed in this case, petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 5760 of 2023. Petitioner is further directed to cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Agency as and when required. Petitioner shall also give an undertaking by filing affidavit before the learned Trial Court that he will not in any manner try to influence the course of investigation or the trial. Petitioner shall not travel abroad without permission of the learned Trial Court.

¶16

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶17

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Amit Agarwal Alias Vicky Bhalotia v. Union of India Represented by Shri Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Agarwal Alias Vicky Bhalotia v. Union of India Represented by Shri Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arti Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mustafa Alias Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Dubey Alias Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohammad Javed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parbhat Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranveer Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand