Case Details: Vijay Kumar Vijh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) 36 Centax 393 (Raj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Chandra Prakash Shrimali, J.
- Hanuman Singh with Ms Supriya Rana, for the Petitioner.
- Akshay Bhardwaj, Counsel for GST & Customs with Ashutosh Ranga, Ajay Singh, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-accused was alleged to have imported black pepper in the name of a fake firm as its authorised representative using a fake identity, cleared the consignments using forged documents, and transported the goods to buyers by issuing fake invoices and e-way bills without reporting the transactions in GST returns. During search of his residence, officers recovered fake Aadhaar cards bearing his photograph and fake names, as well as mobile phones containing data of several fake firms. In his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, he admitted that he had procured Aadhaar cards in fake names on the instructions of a third person, imported black pepper in the name of a fake firm, transported the goods to fictitious buyers using fake invoices/e-way bills, and availed input tax credit and refund/duty drawback on fake exports. The departmental authorities alleged that the acts resulted in loss of over Rs. 12.50 crores to the Revenue. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the allegations involved violations of Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and constituted economic offences of serious nature with potential impact on the country’s economy. The court noted that the petitioner-accused had been in judicial custody for only five months, the investigation was still underway, and the evidentiary value of his Section 108 statement and the correctness of facts discovered during investigation required examination through statements of key witnesses. The court held that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage might enable him to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Invoking Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to grant bail. The application was accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI — (2013) 7 SCC 466 —Relied on [Paras 4, 7]
- Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India — 2008 (9) SCC 685 —Distinguished [Paras 2, 8]
- Rohit Tandon v. Enforcement Directorate — 2017 (356) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) —Relied on [Para 7]
- Y.S. Gagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI — (2013) 7 SCC 439 —Relied on [Paras 4, 7]
