RATNAMBAR KAUSHIKversusUNION OF INDIA

326                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   18 S.C.R. 326                [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A                          RATNAMBAR KAUSHIK
                                         v.
                               UNION OF INDIA
         (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 10319 of 2022)
B
                              DECEMBER 05, 2022
                 [A. S. BOPANNA AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
            Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Grant of bail –
      Application under, by petitioner against alleged offence u/s.
C     132(1)(a),(h),(k) and (l) rw s. 132(5) of the Central Goods and
      Services Tax Act, 2017 – Petitioner had clandestinely transported
      raw unmanufactured tobacco by 7 trucks weighing 90,520 kgs for
      manufacture and supply of zarda without payment of leviable duties
      and taxes – Held: Petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while
D     in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge
      sheet has been filed – For the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner,
      the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5
      years and fine – Petitioner having already undergone incarceration
      for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event,
      would take some time – In view thereof, the petitioner to be released
E     on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial court,
      and his diligent participation in the trial.
            EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition
      for Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No. 10319 of 2022.

F           From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2022 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal
      Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12475/2022.
            Mukul Rohtagi, Maninder Singh, C. S. Vaidhyanath, Sr. Advs.,
      Anirban Bhattacharya, Apoorv Agarwal, Ms. Niharika Gupta, Rajeev
G     Choudhary, Manav Goel, Ms. Shikha Khurana, Shubham Sagar Dayma,
      Advs. for the Petitioner.
            Balbir Singh, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Naman Tandon, Samarvir
      Singh, Shyam Gopal, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Prahlad Singh, Rupinder
      Sinhmar, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Respondent.
H
                                        326
              RATNAMBAR KAUSHIK v. UNION OF INDIA                                 327


       The following Order of the Court was passed:                               A
                                   ORDER
       1. The petitioner is before this Court, assailing the order dated
21.10.2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Bench
at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12475 of
2022. Through the said order the High Court has dismissed the application         B
filed by the petitioner hereunder under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure1 seeking bail in the proceedings for the offence alleged against
him under Section 132(1)(a),(h),(k) and (l) read with Section 132(5) of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20172 .
       2. Heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri                  C
Maninder Singh learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Balbir
Singh learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent. In that
light, we have perused the petition papers as also the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondent.
       3. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner in the prosecution
initiated against him is that the petitioner had clandestinely transported        D
raw unmanufactured tobacco brought from Gujarat by 7 trucks weighing
90,520 kgs. It is alleged that raw tobacco was cleared in the name of M/
s Maa Ambey Enterprises, Bakoli from M/s Arihant Traders, Kheda,
Gujarat but the said trucks went to Patparganj Area to M/s Galaxy
Tobacco in Delhi. It is further alleged that the said quantity of                 E
unmanufactured tobacco has been apparently used in the clandestine
manufacture and supply of chewing tobacco without payment of leviable
duties and tax. The petitioner contends that even if the tax is levied at
28%, the value would be around 10,30,824/-. However, as per the case
of the respondent, the total tax/duty and cess involved would be
  15,57,28,345/-. The said contention has been raised on the basis of the         F
projected manufacture of zarda pouches from the said quantity of
unmanufactured tobacco. Thus on the projected number of pouches, the
tax amount if taken into consideration, would be to that extent. It is
further contended on behalf of the respondent that in the course of the
investigation it has also come to light, apart from the 7 trucks, 287 more        G
trucks loaded with raw unmanufactured tobacco has been transported
as per the details obtained from the Toll/RFID data of NHAI, which
shows the movement of the trucks.

1
    For short “Cr.P.C.”
2
    For short “GST”                                                               H
328             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A            4. Insofar as the allegations made against the petitioner are
      concerned, learned senior counsel for the petitioner while rebutting the
      same would contend that at this juncture, such allegations made by the
      respondent against the petitioner are far-fetched. Even if one accepts
      as correct, the allegation on which the proceedings is predicated, wherein
      90,520 kgs. of raw/unmanufactured tobacco in 7 trucks is taken note of,
B
      the GST, if reckoned, comes to only 1,93,26,020/-. It is contended that
      the sum of 11,04,34,400/- shown as cess by the respondent is even
      without the proof of manufacture of zarda and it has been done only to
      indicate the projected value of more than 15 Crores. Learned senior
      counsel for the petitioner therefore disputed the allegations and contended
C     that such allegations have been made only to allege cognizable and non-
      bailable offence against the petitioner so as to deny bail and take him
      into custody.
             5. Though allegations and counter allegations are made, at this
      stage, it would not be necessary for us to advert to the details of the rival
D     contentions, since the matter in any event is at large before the trial
      court and any observations on merits herein would prejudice the case of
      the parties, therein. However, for the limited purpose of answering the
      prayer for the grant of bail, the contentions are taken note of. It is no
      doubt true, that an allegation is made with regard to the transportation of
      unmanufactured tobacco and it is alleged that such procurement of
E
      unmanufactured tobacco is for clandestine manufacture and supply of
      zarda without payment of leviable duties and taxes. Though it is further
      contended that in the process of the investigation, the transportation of a
      larger quantity of unmanufactured tobacco weighing about 35,57,450
      kgs. is detected, these are all matters to be established based on the
F     evidence, in the trial.
             6. In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner
      was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the 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
G     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
H
             RATNAMBAR KAUSHIK v. UNION OF INDIA                                   329


a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent        A
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.
                                                                                   B
       7. Hence, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject
to the conditions to be imposed by the trial Court, which among others,
shall also include the condition to direct the petitioner to deposit his
passport. Further, such other conditions shall also be imposed by the trial
Court to secure the presence of the petitioner to diligently participate in
the trial. It is further directed that the petitioner be produced before the       C
trial Court forthwith, to ensure compliance of this order.
        8. The special leave petition is allowed accordingly.
        9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
                                                                                   D
Nidhi Jain                                                          SLP allowed.




                                                                                   E




                                                                                   F




                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H