Economic Offenders are Serious Threat to National Economy: Rajasthan HC refuses Bail to Accused of GST Scam worth Rs. 869 Cr [Read Order]

Economic Offenders - Serious Threat - National Economy - Rajasthan HC - Bail - Accused - GST Scam - worth - Taxscan

The Rajasthan High Court, while hearing a bail application filed by a director of a company allegedly involved in a GST scam worth Rs. 869 crores have refused to grant bail.

The petitioner is a simply Director in the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited arrested since 13.01.2022. The petitioner contended that in the first complaint, there was not a single word regarding the alleged offence against him and in supplementary complaint, only allegation of the offence based on the statement of the petitioner and later he had retracted from the statement.

The petitioner relied on a similar case of Dhananjay Singh Versus Union Of India in which this Court has granted bail to the Dhananjay Singh and contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted bail to the Vinaykant Ameta. So, as a matter of parity, petitioner be enlarged on bail.

Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha observed that the petitioner and Vinaykant Ameta were Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. As per the prosecution story, they had evaded tax of Rs. 869 Crores. GST department had seized one truck which was being unloaded at their premises.

Dismissing the bail application, the Court held that “the Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. Case of the petitioner is similar to the Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India and bail of the Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on depositing of Rs.200 Crores. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.”

Sohan Singh Rao vs Union Of India

CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 233

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

taxscan-loader