Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in GST Prosecution Case Where Charge Sheet Already Filed and Maximum Sentence Capped at Five Years

Case Overview

Case: Vikas Sain S/o Sh. Ganpat Lal Sain Vs State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Statute Involved: Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

Background of the Bail Application

The present matter arose from a bail petition moved before the Rajasthan High Court by the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petition was connected to Case File No. AE/EWI/A/JAIPUR/2025-26/6922, registered for alleged violations under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The accused had been taken into custody on 04.04.2025 and remained incarcerated at the time of filing the bail application. A charge sheet had already been submitted before the concerned trial court by the time the matter came up for hearing before the High Court.

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed strong reliance on two landmark pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to substantiate the claim for bail:

1. Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4349/2025)

2. Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India

[2022 SCC OnLine SC 1678], decided on 05.12.2022

The petitioner's counsel drew the Court's attention specifically to paragraph 6 of the ruling in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, which the Court extracted verbatim in its order:

"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 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."

The key principles that emerge from these Supreme Court rulings, as canvassed before the Rajasthan High Court, can be summarised as follows: