Case Details:
Case Title: Rajesh Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Petition No.: S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5728/2025
Relevant Section: Section 132(1) of CGST Act, 2017
Category: Bail in GST Offence (Fake Invoicing and ITC Fraud)
Date of Judgement: 13 June 2025
Relevant Law: Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017; Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
Facts of the Case (Ref: Para 1–9):
-
The petitioner, Rajesh Agarwal, was accused of operating 44 dummy firms registered in the names of relatives/employees and issuing fake invoices to avail fraudulent ITC amounting to ₹26 crore. (Para 2, 8)
-
The GST Department completed investigation and filed the complaint without keeping any other parties under continued investigation, despite involvement of firms like M/s. Droom Company and RTO agents. (Para 9)
-
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.03.2025 and charge sheet was filed on 22.05.2025. (Para 2, 12)
-
Maximum punishment for the alleged offence under Section 132 CGST Act is 5 years, and the offence is compoundable. (Para 10)
Questions in Consideration (Ref: Para 1, 7, 10, 11):
-
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in light of the gravity of charges and stage of the trial?
-
Whether long pendency of trial and absence of extraordinary circumstances justify bail?
Observation of Court (Ref: Para 11–15):
-
The presumption of innocence is fundamental until proven guilty as per criminal jurisprudence. (Para 11)
-
Trial has not commenced and 46 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, indicating prolonged proceedings. (Para 12)
-
Relied on Vineet Jain v. UOI (SC) which emphasized bail in GST offences where sentence is limited and trial is based on documents. (Para 14)
-
No extraordinary circumstances shown by prosecution for continued detention. (Para 15)
Judgement of the Court (Ref: Para 15–17):
-
The Court granted bail to Rajesh Agarwal on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each.
-
He is directed not to leave India without prior permission of the Court and must appear on all hearing dates. (Para 16–17)
🧾 Between Fine Lines:
-
Even in serious GST fraud cases, bail may be granted if trial is likely to be delayed.
-
Absence of pending investigation and no risk of tampering with evidence supports bail.
-
The principle of “bail not jail” applies unless exceptional circumstances exist.
-
Charge-sheet filing and documentary nature of evidence reduce need for prolonged custody.
-
Businessmen can’t be indefinitely jailed if the offence is compoundable and sentence is limited.
📚 Summary of Referred Cases:
| S.No | Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ratnambar Kaushik v. UOI | SLP (Crl.) No. 10319/2022 | Bail granted in GST evasion considering document-based prosecution | Bail granted |
| 2 | Siya Ram Yadav v. UOI | S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail No. 7283/2024 | Bail given despite serious charge due to pre-trial delay | Bail granted |
| 3 | Rajesh Goyal v. UOI | S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail No. 16113/2024 | Similar fake invoice ITC case; delay in trial weighed in | Bail granted |
| 4 | Vineet Jain v. UOI | Criminal Appeal No. 2269/2025 | Apex Court held prolonged custody unjust in 5-year offence | Bail granted |
| 5 | Manoj Kumar Jain v. UOI | S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail No. 4191/2024 | Seven-month custody without trial led to bail | Bail granted |
| 6 | Krishna Damani v. State of WB | Cr. Appeal No. 2743/2024 | Fraudulent GST claim case; delay led to conditional bail | Bail granted |
| … | Other cases listed (Naresh Jajra, Sanjeev Jain, Saurabh Jindal, etc.) | — | Most involve prolonged custody, documentary evidence, and no prior record | Bail granted |
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
