IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 425 of 2025 Sumit Gupta @ Sumit Kumar Gupta, son of Late Ramesh Chand Gupta, age about 44 years, Resident of T-1, Flat No. 3/C, M.B. Block, Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake City, P.O and P.S. Bidhan Nagar, District Kokata, West Bengal --- --- Petitioner Versus Union of India represented by Shri Dinesh Kumar, Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur, 2nd / 3rd Floor Shaurya Trade Centre, 159, Dhalbhum Road, Sakchi, P.O & P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: M/s Indrajit Sinha, Nitin Kr. Pasari, Shubham Choudhary, Sidhi Jalan, Advocates For the O.P-UoI: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- 05 / 07.03.2025 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Complaint Case No. 1280 of 2024 arising out of File No. DGGI/INV/GST/2538/2023-Gr E-O/o ADD-DGGI-RU-JAMSHEDPUR for the offences registered under sections 132 of CGST Act read with section 20 of IGST Act read with section 34, 120A, 193, 195(A), 201, 203, 204, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur. 3. Petitioner is said to be the mastermind behind creating fake companies / firms which were involved in passing on inadmissible Input Tax Credit. About 522.91 crore was illegally passed on as inadmissible Input Tax Credit of Goods and Services Tax causing huge loss to the Government Exchequer. 4. Bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 5. Petitioner has moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P (Cri) No. 11672 of 2024 which was withdrawn vide order dated 02.09.2024. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that though, cognizance of the offences has been taken under sections 2. 132(1) (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as offences under sections 201 (Part-3, 204, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, but no offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It was further submitted that maximum punishment for the offence under the CGST Act is of five years. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik versus Union of India reported in [(2023) 2 SCC 621]. It was further submitted that material evidences are electronic evidences and as such, it cannot be tampered into. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CGST has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he is involved in creating fake companies which were further involved in passing on inadmissible Input Tax Credit. 8. It appears that in connected cases of similar nature, co-accused Amit Gupta has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide B.A. No. 5472 of 2024 and another co-accused Gyan Chandra Jaiswal was granted bail by another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide B.A. No. 7209 of 2024. 9. Petitioner is in custody for about nine months and offences alleged under the CGST Act, 2017 are punishable with maximum sentence of five years. As submitted, material evidences are electronic in nature and as such, cannot be tampered into. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1280 of 2024 arising out of File No. DGGI / INV / GST / 2538 / 2023-Gr E-O/o ADD-DGGI-RU-JAMSHEDPUR. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded