1 2025:CGHC:42485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5751 of 2025 • Shubham Kumar S/o Shri Satyanarayan Singh Aged About 19 Years (Mentioned As Shubham In Impugned Order) (Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) R/o Ganghar, Post- Taradh, Panchayat Maudihaan, Block- Nokha, District Rohtas (Bihar) ... Applicant versus • Union Of India Through Dggi, Zonal Unit- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.GST/314/2025 registered at Police Station – DGGI, Zonal Unit, District-Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 16, 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f) of CGST Act, 2017. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant has utilized fake bills to avail fraudulent Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs.7,44,84,094/- causing loss to the Government exchequer, committing an offence under the prose visions of the CGST Act, 2017. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.08.22 18:43:50 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that no requisites to establish any offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the GST Act, 2017 are established even prima facie against the accused. He further submits that the quantum and nature of punishment under the GST Act, 2017 is based upon the quantum of tax involved. The Prosecution has not even determined the quantum, which can only be decided after assessment (which is even of the appealable) detention the therefore and Accused/Applicant under such situation is completely unwarranted and against his constitutional rights, Further, the maximum punishment provided under the CGST Act, 2017 is of up to 5 years, however, none of the directions as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 later upheld in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 were followed by the officers of CGST, Raipur while arresting the Applicant. He also submits that complaint has been filed and applicant is in jail since 07.04.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheethas been filed in the present case before the competent Court and complaint has also been filed against the applicant therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and he has no criminal antecedent, hough the charge-sheet/complaint has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant, he is in jail since 07.04.2025 and the charge-sheet has been filed, further the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant – Shubham Kumar, involved inCrime No.GST/314/2025 registered at Police Station – DGGI, Zonal Unit, District-Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 16, 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f) of CGST Act, 2017, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum 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 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. 4 (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 for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali