Case Details: Directorate General of GST Intelligence Versus Rakesh Kumar Goyal (2025) 32 Centax 238 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ms Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
- S/Shri Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing Counsel & Gagan Vaswani, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Shadman Ahmed Sidiiqui, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) developed intelligence that certain companies were engaged in fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the Invoices of non-existing and fictitious Firms. After detailed investigations, it was found that the accused was involved in offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, the accused was granted bail. Aggrieved by such order, DGGI filed a petition to recall the bail order.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that once the chargesheet gets filed, the considerations for grant of bail at the stage of investigation, which are material, are whether the accused would present himself for investigation and cooperate in the investigations and that he would not hamper the investigations or tamper with the evidence of witnesses. However, once the chargesheet gets filed, these considerations fade into the background, and what is now material is to consider the gravity of the offence along with the Triple Test, viz., whether he is a flight risk or he would influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. In the present case, it cannot be overlooked that the evidence is essentially documentary, and there is no likelihood of the same being tampered with by the accused after having been admitted to bail.
There is nothing to show that he is a flight risk or there is any likelihood of his influencing the witnesses. The discretion has been rightly exercised by the CMM while granting the bail. There was no ground to show that the discretion of granting bail was not judiciously exercised by CMM or that there was any misuse or abuse of liberty so granted by the accused. There was also nothing on record to show that the trial had been hampered on account of the grant of bail.
List of Cases Cited
- Ajay Sagar v. DRI — 2009 (3) JCC 1726 — Referred [Para 17]
- Laxman Irappa Hatti and Suresh v. State of Maharashtra — (2004) CRILJ 3802 — Referred [Para 23]
- Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. — [Crl. Appeal No. 1272 of 2015, dated 29-9-2015] — Referred [Para 17]
- Shahzad Hasan Khan v. lshtiaq Hasan Khan — AIR 1987 SC 1613 — Referred [Para 7]
- State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal — (1987) 2 SCC 364 — Referred [Para 21]
- State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha — AIR 1989 SC 2292 — Referred [Para 8]
