1 2025:CGHC:41276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6435 of 2025 Nishant Sahu S/o Lt. Ramesh Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Chandi Para, Pamgarh P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Line, District- (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 361/2014 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The main allegation as per the prosecution is that the applicant had a turnover of Rs. 356.25 lakhs during the assessment year 2013-14, but declared sales of only Rs. 47.37 lakhs, thereby avoiding payment of Value Added Tax and evading tax amounting to Rs. 17.81 lakhs under ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 19:48:47 +0530 2 the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. On 27.06.2014, a written complaint was filed by the Complainant, Commercial Tax Officer, Bilaspur, Circle-2, at Civil Line Police Station, Bilaspur (C.G.), alleging that the present applicant, proprietor of M/s Sai Nath Enterprises, had obtained registration for the said firm from the Commercial Tax Department on 02.10.2013 for the purpose of buying and selling coal and coke. It was further alleged that, according to data compiled from the departmental software modules based on the online returns and annexures filed by registered traders under the Chhattisgarh VAT Act, several dealers claimed input tax credit under Section 13 of the VAT Act on purchases shown from M/s Sai Nath Enterprises. However, scrutiny of the applicant’s returns filed under Section 19(1) of the C.G. VAT Act for the third and fourth quarters of the assessment year 2013-14 revealed declared sales of only Rs. 47.37 lakhs. Upon perusal of the Online Purchaser List in the e-Portal Software of the department, it was found that the applicant had actually made sales amounting to Rs. 356.25 lakhs by generating bogus bills, thereby evading tax to the tune of Rs. 17.81 lakhs. Thus, the applicant caused loss to the government revenue by evading his tax liability. On the basis of the above incident, an FIR bearing Crime No. 361/2014 was registered against the applicant under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, and he has been prosecuted in the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the investigation has ignored the provisions of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act, 2005. No reassessment of tax under Section 22 of the Act has been carried out. Therefore, the allegation itself is unsustainable. He further submits that the FIR was lodged on 27.06.2014, but the charge-sheet 3 has been filed only in 2025—after an unexplained delay of about 11 years. Such delay violates the applicant’s right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and shows lack of diligence by the prosecution. He submits that even if the prosecution story is accepted in full, the essential ingredients of Sections 420 and 467 IPC are missing. There is no evidence of dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, nor any allegation of forgery of a valuable security or will. The dispute, if any, is fiscal in nature and has been unnecessarily criminalized. The allegations relate entirely to tax discrepancies, which fall under the CG VAT Act, 2005—a complete code for assessment, recovery, and penalties. Prosecution under the IPC is unwarranted and amounts to abuse of process. He also submits that prosecution under the CG VAT Act requires prior sanction from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. No such sanction has been obtained; hence, the present prosecution is without jurisdiction and bad in law. The CG VAT Act classifies all offences as bailable and provides its own investigation and adjudication mechanism. Invoking non-bailable IPC provisions in such a matter is a misapplication of law. He further submits that the allegation of issuing bogus bills finds no support in the final report, which is silent on the existence of any such bills against the applicant. This shows the allegation is baseless. He submits that witness statements reveal that one Sonu @ Piyush Singh was running a scheme of opening firms in others’ names to issue bogus bills. He is the mastermind; the applicant was not an active participant and Sonu @ Piyush Singh has been absconding since 2014 and is evading investigation. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 29.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he 4 prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and further the fact that the FIR was lodged against the applicant on 27.06.2014, but the charge-sheet has been filed only in 2025—after an unexplained delay of about 11 years, further the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court, which is taken on record and the present applicant has been in jail since 29.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Nishant Sahu, involved in Crime No. 361/2014 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders 5 in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek