Rajasthan High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea In ₹48 Crore GST Evasion Case
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a second bail application filed by a man accused of being the kingpin of an alleged ₹48.41 crore GST evasion syndicate, ruling that bail granted to a co-accused cannot by itself entitle another accused to the same relief.
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed, "It is a settled proposition of law that parity, by itself, is not the sole or determinative ground for grant of bail as while considering the plea of parity, the court is required to independently examine the individual role attributed to the accused, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and all other relevant circumstances."
The petitioner, accused under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, had moved the second bail application after his first plea was rejected. He argued that a subsequent order of the Supreme Court granting bail to a co-accused amounted to a material change in circumstances and entitled him to the same relief.
The allegations against the petitioner were of being the kingpin of the fraudulent syndicate that operated multiple fake firms, generated fake invoices, e-way bills, and transport documents, for facilitating availing and usage of inadmissible input tax credit, resulting in tax evasion.
It was argued by the petitioner that he was implicated solely based on his statements recorded with coercion, under Section 70, CGST Act, without there being any independent or legally admissible material.
On the contrary, it was argued by the authorities that the petitioner was not on similar footing as that of the co-accused who was granted bail, and hence, the principle of parity had no application. It was submitted that his role was substantially different and graver than that of the other accused persons.
After hearing the contentions, the court highlighted that the first bail of the petitioner was rejected based on the nature of allegations, material collected during the investigation, and the specific role attributed to him. It was opined that a successive bail application was maintainable only upon substantial change in facts.
In relation to the argument of principle of parity, the Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Sagar v State of Uttar Pradesh to hold that the principle could not be applied mechanically and the Court was required to assess individual role of the accused before extending the benefit.
In this light, it was observed, “petitioner cannot be placed on the same footing asthe co-accused merely because the latter has been enlarged on bail. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the involvement of the accused petitioner in creation and operation of fictitious firms, generation of fake invoices and e-way bills and facilitation of clandestine movement of goods resulting in alleged GST Evasion to the tune of approximately Rs. 48,41,21,094/-”.
Hence, it was concluded that the role attributed to the petitioner revealed his direct and substantial involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, order granting bail to co-accused could not be a ground in itself to extend same benefit to the petitioner.
The court also observed that economic offences constituted a class apart and were required to be viewed from a different approach while considering bail applications, since such offences had serious repercussions on the economy and the financial health of the nation.
Accordingly, the Court held that there was no substantial change in the circumstances requiring interference with the earlier order rejecting bail. The present application was dismissed.