SANJEET KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
   CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27068 of 2026

Sanjeet Kumar
                                                .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus

Union Of India And 2 Others
                                                   .....Opposite
                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Kaustubh Tripathi, Ravi
                                Kant
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi, G.A.

Court No. - 55
            HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party-
D.G.G.I and perused the record.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that co-
accused Shivam Dwivedi has already been granted bail by
order dated 21.7.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.15773 of 2026 and co-accused Dilip Kumar Jha has also
been granted bail by order dated 16.4.2026 in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.11595 of 2026. The dispute in the present
case pertains to supply of Areca nuts by the co-accused to the
Company. The applicant is owner of M/s Ganga Trading
Company. The main accused is co-accused Shivam Dwivedi,
who has already been enlarged on bail. The applicant is
claiming parity with the aforesaid co-accused. The applicant
has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since
1.2.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-DGGI has opposed
the bail application, however, he could not dispute the claim of
parity made by the applicant.
                                                  BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                          2


4. It is not in dispute that till date proceedings under Sections
73 and 74 of CGST Act has not been initiated. The said
proceedings are in the nature of assessment proceedings in
respect of alleged violation where show cause notice can be
issued to tax payer. Although criminal prosecution is not barred
and are independent proceedings. However, where in
assessment proceedings, it is found that taxpayer has not
violated any law, the same may have bearing on the criminal
prosecution.

5. The liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would
cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and
fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. There is a
presumption of innocence in favour of accused pending trial.
The ultimate justification for such deprivation of liberty can
only be, the accused being found guilty of the offences for
which they have been charged. If such a finding is not likely to
be arrived at within a reasonable time some relief becomes
necessary. Timely delivery of justice is part of human rights
and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in
the administration of justice. No material has been shown by
State to demonstrate that the conduct of applicant while in jail
would disentitle the applicant to be released on bail.

6. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is
presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in
custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to
receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention
(pending trial) is not supposed to be punitive. Delay in
commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken
into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for
indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within
reasonable time.

7. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that accused cannot be in jail during
trial as a punitive measure for his conduct, In this respect
                                                  BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                          3


paragraph 21, 22 and 23 of Sanjay Chandra (Supra) is quoted
herein below:-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from
the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused
person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention
in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of
great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that
some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending
trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,
"necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in
the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect
of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in
any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon
only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at
liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of
refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any
imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive
content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as
a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused
has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson."

8. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away
                                                  BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                          4


except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article
21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates
deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by
law. Under the criminal laws, a person accused of offences
which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody
during pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in
accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as
being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by
law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are
entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion
that prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case
against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be
recorded that in spite of existence of prima facie case there is a
need to release such person on bail where fact situations
require it to do so.

9. Article 21 of Constitution provides that no person will be
deprived of his life or liberty except by procedure established
by law. The procedure established by law should be just, fair
and reasonable. The presumption of innocence is applicable to
under trial accused. Even if prima facie case is made out, the
constitutional Court while considering the bail application are
required to examine whether it is reasonable to keep the
accused in custody during trial and in only exceptional cases
(like heinous crime) the bail can be denied.

10. In Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No 20996 of 2025
(Atul Mehra Vs. Union of India) by order dated 12.1.2026,
Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the accused
under Section 132(i) of GST Act, 2017 and Section 20(xv) of
IGST Act, 2017 (who was under detention for eight months)
has observed as under:-

"4. We do not undermine the gravity of the alleged offence.
However, at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that
the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner
                                                  BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                          5


past 8 months. The Trial Court is yet to commence. Charge is
yet to be framed. Even if the trial commences in near future, it
would not conclude within next one year. The offences are
triable by Magistrate. The maximum punishment that the trial
court may be in a position to impose upon the petitioner if held
guilty would be upto 5 years."

11. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No 2269 of 2025
(Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India) (Arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No 4349 of 2025) decided on 28.4.2025 while
grating bail to accused Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section
132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has
observed as under:-

"The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses
(c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years
with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in
custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by
a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in
any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence.
There are no antecedents.

We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant
has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the
High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this
Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the
Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some
extra ordinary circumstances"

12. In Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, (2023) 2
SCC 621, Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to an
accused under Sections 132(1)(a), (h), (k) and (l) read with
Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 has observed as under:-

"8. In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the
petitioner was arrested on 21-7-2022 and while in custody, the
                                                  BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                          6


investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has
been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of
tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section
132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which
may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already
undergone incarceration for more than four months and
completion of trial, in any event, would take some time.
Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is
required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and
diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the
present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent
would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular
evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there
can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or
influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective,
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it
proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner."

13. Under Section 132 of CGST Act, maximum punishment
provided is 5 years. The prosecution is triable by Magistrate.
Applicant is in jail since 1.2.2026. It has not been shown by
opposite party that charge has been framed against applicant.
Even if the trial commences in near future, it would not
conclude within next one year. Applicant has no previous
criminal history.

14. In Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2024)
12 SCC 660, Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the
principle that "Bail is a Rule and jail is exception"

"52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case [Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813
: (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 222] further observed that, over a period
of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a
very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld
as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it
appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to
                                                   BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                          7


play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a
rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach.
On account of non-grant of bail even in straightforward open-
and-shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail
petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time
that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognise the
principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"."

15. Learned counsel for opposite parties has not brought any
fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or
antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the
applicant for bail.

16. Learned counsel for opposite parties has not shown any
exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail
to the applicant. No material, facts or circumstances has been
shown by learned counsel for opposite party that accused may
tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such
character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the
witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice
or tamper with the evidence.

17. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to
secure the attendance of accused at the trial. No material
particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing
from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating
witnesses and the like have been shown. Further the trial is by
Magistrate and maximum punishment for offence is five years
and applicant is in jail since 1.2.2026. Investigation against
applicant completed and complaint filed and there is no chance
that trial is completed in near future.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, period of detention and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is
                                                  BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                          8


of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The
bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant - Sanjeet Kumar involved in Case Crime
No.189 of 2026, under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(b) and
132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, Police Station DGGI, Meerut,
District Meerut be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following
conditions:-

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the
applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the
applicant shall inform the court concerned about new
residential address in writing.
                                                                                   BAIL No. 27068 of 2026
                                                              9


                                        20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the
                                        prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation
                                        application before this Court.

                                        September 14, 2026
                                        Bhaskar

                                                                          (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad