# Nitin Verma v. Union of India & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 480
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 54497 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nitin-verma-v-union-of-india-anr-opp-parties-48909
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Central Goods & Services Tax
Act , 2017 - Section 132(1) B(1) : Applicant
implicated on the statement of a co-accused-
who has already been granted bail -earlier the
applicant had been granted anticipatory bail -
department had initiated proceedings-Applicant
not in a position to influence the case.

Bail Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations against the applicant and,
therefore, no case for anticipatory bail is
made out on merit also.

13. The application is accordingly
rejected.

14. However, two weeks time is
granted to applicant to surrender before
Trial Court and to move an application for
bail. In case such an application is filed by
applicant, Trial Court is directed to decide
the same expeditiously considering the
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another,
(2021) 10 SCC 773.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 480
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 54497 of 2021

Nitin Verma ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kaustubh Srivastava, Sri Kandarp Srivastava,
Sri Ashish Deep Verma, Sri Azad Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Dhananjay Awasthi

Civil Law - Central Goods & Services Tax
Act , 2017 - Section 132(1) B(1) : Applicant
implicated on the statement of a co-accused-
who has already been granted bail -earlier the
applicant had been granted anticipatory bail -
department had initiated proceedings-Applicant
not in a position to influence the case.

Bail Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Bihar Vs Amit Kumar, 2017 (13) SCC
751

2.Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs C.B.I., (2013) 7
SCC 439,

3.Chhaya Devi Vs U.O.I., 2021 (52) GSTL 390
(Alld.),

4.Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3
SCC 22

5.Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40:

6.
P.
Chidambaram
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Deep Verma and
Sri Azad Khan, Advocates, the learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay
Awasthi, the learned counsel for the
C.G.S.T. and Customs.

2. The instant application has been
filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case No. IV - CE (9) CP / Agra /
Nitin / 25119 251/2019, under Sections 132
(1) (B) (I), Central Goods & Services Tax
Act, 2017 (which will hereinafter be
referred to as ''the CGST Act'), Police
Station Hari Parvat, District Agra during
pendency of trial in the Court below.

3. As per the prosecution case, the
officials of Central Goods & Services Tax
& Central Excise, Commissionerate Agra
were investigating a case of huge evasion
of GST on the basis of an intelligence input
that the applicant is indulging in issuing
bogus invoices without supply of goods, in
the name of fake firms created by him. On
20.12.2019, a team of certain officers of
Anti Evasion Branch, CGST & Central
Excise, Commissionerate Agra conducted a
8 All. Nitin Verma Vs. Union of India & Anr.
481
search at four different locations belonging
to the applicant.

4. It is stated that during search of the
residential premises of the applicant, a
mobile phone alongwith a SIM card, 6 PAN
cards,
5
Voter
Identity
Cards,
10
debit/credit cards, 8 cheque-books and
several other documents were recovered.
An analysis of the data contained in the
aforesaid mobile phone revealed several
fake tax invoices, ledgers, a list of 38 bank
accounts and Form GSTR-3B etc. Analysis
of the mobile data revealed communication
of the applicant with other persons
directing them to issue invoices, e-way bills
etc. and hundreds of invoices issued in the
name of various firms, were found in the
mobile phone. In a laptop computer
recovered from another premises of the
applicant, tax calculations of various firms
were there, the mention whereof was found
in the mobile phone data. A person present
at the location had introduced himself as
Chandra Prakash Kriplani and he stated
that he was an employee of the applicant
and he produced the electricity bill of the
building in the name of the applicant. Two
laptop computers, 10 mobile phones and
some rough papers having details of many
fake firms viz, the name of the proprietor
and GSTIN addresses etc. were also
recovered. It is said that the mobile phones
were used to receive one time password
(OTP) at the time of GST registration and
the aforesaid details matched with the data
available in the mobile phone of the
applicant, indicating the applicant's control
over the fake firms. A currency note
counting machine, a printer and a router
were also recovered from the premises of
the applicant.

5. As a result of the simultaneous
searches conducted at 4 locations of the
applicant on 20.12.2019 and also upon
investigation, it was found that 126 fake
firms have been created by the applicant
and Chandra Prakash Kriplani and bogus
invoices were issued by the aforesaid firms
for passing on inadmissible input tax credit
to various purchasers, without any actual
supply of goods.

6. As per the prosecution case, it has been
revealed during investigation that the total
invoice value of the fake supplies made by
the aforesaid 126 bogus firms is Rs. 691.35
Crores and the total GST evasion involved
in
it
is
Rs.
100.30
Crores.

7. In his statement recorded on
20.12.2019, the aforesaid Chandra Prakash
Kriplani stated that he was working as an
employee of the applicant for the past 6-7
months and the applicant used to pay him
Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary; that he
had studied upto class-X only and that he
used to generate e-way bills on the
directions of the applicant. In his further
statement recorded on 24.12.2019 and
27.01.2020, Chandra Prakash Kriplani has
stated that all the firms were created by the
applicant and a forged PAN and a Voter
Identity Card had been prepared by the
applicant in the name of one Pushpendra
Kumar Gupta and on both the aforesaid
documents, Kriplani's photographs had
been used.

8. Out of the 126 bogus firms,
proprietors of two such firms were
examined
and
their
statements
were
recorded, who gave statements implicating
the applicant.

9. The prosecution also claims that
during investigation and examination of the
documents recovered from the applicant's
premises, it has been found that he had
invested huge amounts in purchasing
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
properties either in his own name or in the
name of his wife - Jyoti Verma. The
applicant had booked two flats in Anthela
Project of M/s Bharat Nagar Housing, Agra
and he had paid a sum of Rs. 42,25,656/-
for the said flat during February 2019 to
November 2019 from the third party bank
accounts belonging to M/s Moon Stars
Traders and M/s Kamal Trading Company.
In respect of a flat booked in the name of
the applicant's wife Jyoti Verma, the
payments were made by M/s New India
Pesticide, M/s R. S. Trading and M/s Moon
Stars Traders.

10. During investigation, it has also
come to light that while booking his flat in
Bharat Nagar Housing, Agra, the applicant
had
given
his
mobile
number
as
9319709362 and it was found that four
bogus firms, namely, Moon Star Traders,
Arihant
Corporation,
JES
Trading
Company, R. S. Steel Trading Company are
registered in GST department with the
aforesaid mobile number. Rovin Sharma
the proprietor of M/s R. S. Steel Company
had stated in his statement recorded on
03.01.2020 that the applicant had taken his
PAN card and Aadhar card etc. and that he
had registered the firm.

11. As per the prosecution case, the
applicant is the main master-mind behind
issuance of bogus invoices without supply
of goods, only to pass on inadmissible /
fraudulent input tax credit, because of
which the Government exchequer has
suffered a huge loss of Revenue to the tune
of more than Rs. 100 Crores. On
22.11.2021,
the
Investigating
Officer,
Central Goods & Services Tax & Central
Excise, Commissionerate Agra has filed a
complaint in the Court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Agra against the
applicant under Sections 132 (1) (b) of the
CGST Act, 2017.

12. In the affidavit filed in support of
the bail application, it has been stated that
the applicant was engaged in the business
of property dealing through his firm Shri
Shanti Associates. On 31.12.2019, a
summons under Section 70 read with
Section 174 of CGST, 2017 was issued
against the applicant directing him to
appear at the Anti Evasion Branch, Central
Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise,
Commissionerate Agra on 03.01.2020. A
similar notice was issued against the
applicant's wife and her statement was also
recorded.
The
applicant
claims
that
Chandra Prakash Kriplani was his tenant
and a copy of an affidavit dated 14.01.2020
of Chandra Prakash Kriplani has been
annexed with the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application wherein he has stated
that he was a tenant of the applicant, that he
could not pay rent of the house for the past
two months because of which a quarrel
took place between him and the applicant,
that on 16.12.2019 when the applicant had
come to recover the rent, the dispute
escalated and the applicant had taken away
a bag of Kriplani which contained some
documents and Kriplani's mobile phone and
the documents and the mobile phone
recovered by the officers of CGST on
20.12.2019 were the aforesaid documents
and the mobile phone. He also stated that
his landlord (the applicant) is engaged in
property dealing and finance business.

13. In the affidavit filed in support of
the bail application, it has been claim that the
applicant is involved in business of property
dealing for a long time and that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case by his
tenant Chandra Prakash Kriplani.
8 All. Nitin Verma Vs. Union of India & Anr.
483

14. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the Union of India, wherein it
has inter-alia been stated that the applicant
was not engaged in the business of property
dealing and the certificate of registration of
Shri Shanti Associates, proprietor Nitin
Verma, issued under Section 69 of the
Finance Act, 1994, a copy where of has
been filed alongwith the affidavit filed in
support of the bail application on behalf of
the applicant himself, mentions the services
"Franchise Services". Another document
annexed with the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application is a welcome letter /
ID card dated 27.02.2009 issued by TLC
Insurance (India) Pvt. Ltd., which reads
thus - "We are happy to welcome you to be
a part and parcel of the TLC family. Please
find enclosed your TLC Membership ID
Card. We are extremely confident that you
will expand and promote your business to
newer horizons." It has been averred in the
counter
affidavit
that
the
aforesaid
documents belie the applicant's claim of
being engaged in the business of property
dealing.

15. A copy of an affidavit dated
04.08.2021 affirmed by Chandra Prakash
Kriplani has been annexed with the counter
affidavit wherein he has inter-alia stated
that he had signed his earlier affidavit dated
27.01.2020
under
influence
of
the
applicant's wife and because of the
aforesaid affidavit, he had to suffer
incarceration for one full year. It is further
stated in his affidavit that the applicant's
wife had assured that if Kriplani would act
as per her directions, she will get her
absolved of the present case and for this
reason, he had signed a pre-typed affidavit,
without having read the same.

16. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the alleged
offence under Section 132 (I) (b) CGST
Act, 2017 is triable by a Magistrate and the
maximum prescribed punishment is 5 years'
imprisonment and, therefore, the applicant
ought not to have been arrested for the
aforesaid offence and that he is entitled to
be released on bail on this ground also.

17. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has further submitted that earlier,
this Court had granted anticipatory bail to
the applicant by means of an order dated
05-01-2021 passed in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 4116 of 2020, for a period
of six weeks or till conclusion of the
enquiry under Section 70 (1) of the CGST
Act, whichever was earlier.

18. The Learned counsel for the
applicant has also submitted that the coaccused Chandra Prakash Kriplani, from
whose possession the alleged incriminating
material was recovered, has already been
released on bail and, therefore, the
applicant is also entitled to be released on
bail on the ground of parity.

19. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has further submitted that in para
2.3 of the complaint, it has been alleged
that a currency note counting machine, a
printer and a router were also recovered
from the premises of the applicant, where
the co-accused Chandra Prakash Kriplani
was found present and from the aforesaid
recovery the Prosecution assumed that
black money generated from the alleged
fake firms was counted by the note
counting machine and the printer was used
to print bogus e-way bills and invoices. He
has submitted that neither any bogus
invoice nor any bogus e-way bill has been
recovered from the applicant's possession.
Moreover, as per the averments made in
complaint itself, the applicant had booked
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
two flats and he had paid a sum of Rs.
42,25,656/- for the flat during February
2019 to November 2019 from bank
accounts belonging to M/s Moon Stars
Traders and M/s Kamal Trading Company.
His submission is when the payment has
been made through banking channel, no
black
money
was
involved
in
the
transactions. He has further submitted that
no alleged fake invoice claiming input tax
credit has been placed on record and no
such invoice has been verified so as to
prove that it is fake. Based on the aforesaid
submissions, the learned Counsel for the
applicant claims that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and
he is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Opposing the prayer for grant of
bail, the learned counsel appearing for the
Union of India has submitted that the
applicant is an economic offender and he
has caused a loss of Government Revenue
to the tune of more than Rs. 100 Crores by
creating fake firms and by issuing bogus
invoices and by wrongly claiming input tax
credit.

21. The learned counsel for the Union
of India has submitted that from the
material recovered from the premises of the
applicant during the search conducted on
20.12.2019 and from the analysis of the
data available on the mobile phone
recovered
during
the
search,
it
is
established that the applicant was the
master-mind behind the large scale evasion
of GST by issuing fake invoices and
thereby wrongly claiming Input Tax Credit
and that he was in control of 126 bogus
firms that had been created by him for
issuing fake invoices.

22. The learned counsel for the Union
of India has placed reliance upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar,
2017 (13) SCC 751 in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that "socioeconomic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different
approach in the matter of bail. Usually
socio-economic offence has deep rooted
conspiracies affecting the moral fiber of
the society and causing irreparable harm,
needs to be considered seriously."

23. The learned counsel for the Union
of India has placed reliance on a judgment
in the case of Chhaya Devi Vs. Union of
India, 2021 (52) GSTL 390 (Alld.),
wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court
held as follows: -

"14. The offence alleged against the
applicant is economic offence in which the
evasion
of
duty
amounting
Rs.
62,10,28,165/-
is
made
against
the
applicant.
Although
the
offence
is
punishable with imprisonment of five years
yet the evasion of huge amount of duty is a
great loss to the Government Exchequer. As
such the alleged offence is economic.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Gujrat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji porwal and
others (1987) 2 SCC 364 in para-5 held
that the entire Community is aggrieved if
the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to
books. A murder may be committed in the
heat of moment upon passions being
aroused. An economic offence is committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design
with an eye on personal profit regardless of
the consequence to the Community. A
disregard for the interest of the Community
can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the
Community in the system to administer
justice in an even handed manner without
8 All. Nitin Verma Vs. Union of India & Anr.
485
fear of criticism from the quarters which
view white collar crimes with a permissive
eye unmindful of the damage done to the
National Economy and National Interest
....... "
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Y.S. Jagan
Mohan reddy Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439
held: the economic offences constitute a
class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offence having deep rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds needs to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting
the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country .........."

24. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v.
CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, relied upon by this
Court in Chhaya Devi (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was dealing with an
application for grant of bail in a case under
Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 409
and 477-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (c)
and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 against Y. S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy, Member of Parliament and 73
others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held has
follows: -

"34.Economic offences constitute a
class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The
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 and
thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.

35.While granting bail, the court has
to keep in mind the nature of accusations,
the nature of evidence in support thereof,
the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations."

25. In Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
dealing with allegations of offences which
were
punishable
with
upto
life
imprisonment, but in the present case, the
maximum punishment that can be imposed
upon
the
applicant
is
five
years'
imprisonment. Moreover, the offence is
compoundable
as
per
the
provision
contained in Section 138 of the CGST Act,
sub-Section (1) whereof provides that "Any
offence under this Act may, either before or
after the institution of prosecution, be
compounded by the Commissioner on
payment, by the person accused of the
offence, to the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case be, of such
compounding amount in such manner as
may be prescribed".

26. The learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pleased to reiterate the law of bail in the
following words: -

"2.
A
fundamental
postulate
of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption
of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until
found guilty. However, there are instances
in our criminal law where a reverse onus
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been placed on an accused with regard
to some specific offences but that is another
matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other
offences. Yet another important facet of our
criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of
bail is the general rule and putting a
person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one
may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately,
some
of
these
basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of
with the result that more and more persons
are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
* * *

5. The historical background of the
provision for bail has been elaborately and
lucidly explained in a recent decision
delivered inNikeshTarachand Shah v. Union
of India[(2018) 11 SCC 1] going back to
the days of the Magna Carta. In that
decision, reference was made toGurbaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2
SCC 565]in which it is observed that it was
held way back inNagendra v. KingEmperor [AIR 1924 Cal 476] that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment.
Reference was also made toEmperor v.
Hutchinson [AIR 1931 All 356]wherein it
was observed that grant of bail is the rule
and refusal is the exception. The provision
for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is
almost a century old, going back to
colonial days. "

27. In a recent decision in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau
of Investigation, 2022 Scc OnLine SC 825,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized
and reiterated the law regarding grant of bail
in economic offences, as laid down in its
earlier decisions, in the following words: -

"66.What is left for us now to discuss
are the economic offences. The question for
consideration is whether it should be treated
as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue
has already been dealt with by this Court in
the case ofP. Chidambaramv.Directorate of
Enforcement,(2020) 13 SCC 791, after taking
note of the earlier decisions governing the
field. The gravity of the offence, the object of
the
Special
Act,
and
the
attending
circumstances are a few of the factors to be
taken note of, along with the period of
sentence. After all, an economic offence
cannot be classified as such, as it may
involve various activities and may differ
from one case to another. Therefore, it is not
advisable on the part of the court to
categorise all the offences into one group
and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state
that law, as laid down in the following
judgments, will govern the field:--

Precedents

-P.
Chidambaramv.Directorate
of
Enforcement,(2020) 13 SCC 791:

23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of
the judgments cited on either side including
the one rendered by the Constitution Bench
of this Court, it could be deduced that the
basic
jurisprudence
relating
to
bail
remains the same inasmuch as the grant
of bail is the rule and refusal is the
exception so as to ensure that the accused
has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
However, while considering the same the
gravity of the offence is an aspect which is
required to be kept in view by the Court.
The gravity for the said purpose will have
to be gathered from the facts and
circumstances
arising
in
each
case.
Keeping in view the consequences that
would befall on the society in cases of
financial irregularities, it has been held
that even economic offences would fall
under the category of "grave offence" and
in such circumstance while considering the
8 All. Nitin Verma Vs. Union of India & Anr.
487
application for bail in such matters, the
Court will have to deal with the same,
being sensitive to the nature of allegation
made against the accused. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of
the offence is also the term of sentence
that is prescribed for the offence the
accused is alleged to have committed.
Such consideration with regard to the
gravity of offence is a factor which is in
addition to the triple test or the tripod test
that would be normally applied. In that
regard what is also to be kept in
perspective is that even if the allegation is
one of grave economic offence, it is not a
rule that bail should be denied in every
case since there is no such bar created in
the relevant enactment passed by the
legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence
provide so. Therefore, the underlining
conclusion is that irrespective of the nature
and gravity of charge, the precedent of
another case alone will not be the basis for
either grant or refusal of bail though it may
have a bearing on principle. But ultimately
the consideration will have to be on caseto-case basis on the facts involved therein
and securing the presence of the accused to
stand trial.

-Sanjay Chandrav.CBI,(2012) 1 SCC
40: .

"39. Coming back to the facts of the
present case, both the courts have refused
the request for grant of bail on two grounds
: the primary ground is that the offence
alleged against the accused persons is very
serious involving deep-rooted planning in
which, huge financial loss is caused to the
State exchequer; the secondary ground is
that of the possibility of the accused
persons tampering with the witnesses. In
the present case, the charge is that of
cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery
of property and forgery for the purpose of
cheating using as genuine a forged
document. The punishment for the offence
is imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true
that the nature of the charge may be
relevant, but at the same time, the
punishment to which the party may be
liable, if convicted, also bears upon the
issue. Therefore, in determining whether
to grant bail, both the seriousness of the
charge and the severity of the punishment
should be taken into consideration.

 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail
lies within the discretion of the court. The
grant or denial is regulated, to a large
extent, by the facts and circumstances of
each particular case. But at the same time,
right to bail is not to be denied merely
because
of
the
sentiments
of
the
community against the accused. The
primary purposes of bail in a criminal
case are to relieve the accused of
imprisonment, to relieve the State of the
burden of keeping him, pending the trial,
and at the same time, to keep the accused
constructively in the custody of the court,
whether before or after conviction, to
assure that he will submit to the
jurisdiction of the court and be in
attendance thereon whenever his presence
is required.

xxxxxxxxx

46. We are conscious of the fact that
the accused are charged with economic
offences of huge magnitude. We are also
conscious of the fact that the offences
alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the
economy of the country. At the same time,
we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency has already completed
investigation and the charge-sheet is
already filed before the Special Judge, CBI,
New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the
custody may not be necessary for further
investigation. We are of the view that the
appellants are entitled to the grant of bail
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending trial on stringent conditions in
order to ally the apprehension expressed by
CBI." (emphasis supplied)

28. Analyzing the facts of the case in
light of the law laid explained in the case of
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Dataram Singh
and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), it has
to be taken into consideration that (1) the
applicant has been implicated on the basis
of the statement of a co-accused Chandra
Prakash Kriplani, who has already been
granted bail by this Court; (2) earlier, the
applicant
himself
had
been
granted
anticipatory bail by this Court; (3) the
applicant has no criminal history; (4) the
department had initiated proceedings on
31.12.2019 by issuing a summons under
Section 70 of CGST Act and after
completion
of
the
investigation,
on
22.11.2021 the department has filed a
complaint in the Court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Agra and, therefore, it
cannot be said that now the applicant is in a
position to influence the investigation of
the case; (5) the applicant is languishing in
jail since 26-09-2021; (6) the maximum
punishment that can be imposed upon the
applicant is five years' imprisonment and
(7) the offence is compoundable as per the
provision contained in Section 138 of the
CGST Act, I am of the considered view that
the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail.

29. In light of the preceding
discussion
and
without
making
any
observation on the merits of the case, the
instant bail application is allowed.

30. Let the applicant Nitin Verma be
released on bail in Case No. IV - CE (9) CP
/ Agra / Nitin / 25119 251/2019, under
Sections 132 (1) (B) (I), Central Goods &
Services Tax Act, 2017, Police Station Hari
Parvat, District Agra on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
below, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with
the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence
any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before
the trial court on the date fixed, unless
personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.

31. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move an application before this
Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 488
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7101 of 2022

Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.S. Pandey, Sri Arvind Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article - 226 - Prevention Of