Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail In ₹72 Crore GST Evasion Case, Says Lethargic Approach Of Department Shouldn't Interfere With Accused's Liberty

It was noted that despite the arrest occurring in July 2020, the department had still failed to file a criminal complaint more than five years later.

​The Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “In such circumstances, even if the respondent had remained in custody, he would have undoubtedly been entitled for default bail on the department not completing the investigation in the stipulated time. Although the learned CMM ought to have given more deference to the gravity of offence, the lackadaisical and lethargic approach of the department do not merit interference in the liberty granted to the respondent at this juncture…It is not the case of the petitioner department that the respondent has misused the liberty pursuant to being admitted on bail. It is apparent that the only interest of the department is in the custody of the respondent and not in the adjudication of the case. The respondent cannot be subjected to unending incarceration merely at the whims of the petitioner department when the department itself has taken no active steps in the case.”

SSC Satish Aggarwala appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Ankit Acharya appeared for the Respondents.

A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the Respondent was granted bail in the proceedings under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’).

It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent was deeply involved in evasion of GST to the tune of approximately ₹72 crores by clandestine supply of cigarettes. The respondent was arrested in the present case.

By the impugned order, the Respondent was granted bail by the CMM, considering that the claim of the respondent of depositing an amount of ₹1.35 crores towards GST had not been disputed by the department. It was noted that the final adjudication of the liability of the respondent towards GST deposit was yet to be done, and the filing of the complaint was likely going to take some time. It was also noted that there was no justification in keeping the accused in custody till the commencement of the trial, and details of the companies which had allegedly evaded GST and other taxes were within the knowledge of the department.

The Court observed, “Thus, the learned CMM made an error in taking an insouciant attitude towards the nature of the crime and treating the case as a routine one for grant of bail. Be that as it may, it is imperative to note that on being asked, it is stated that investigation is still not complete and even after a lapse of more than five years, no complaint has been filed against the respondent till date. Despite the fact that the investigation was taken up by the petitioner department way back in the year 2020, no criminal complaint has been filed till date. Even today, it is stated that the department is still in the process of filing the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court found no reason to cancel the bail granted to the respondent after more than five years, and hence dismissed the present petition.

Cause Title: Director General Of GST Intelligence v. Kamal Kishore Aggarwal [Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:11868]

Appearances:

Petitioner: SSC Satish Aggarwala and Advocate Gagan Vaswani

Respondents: Advocates Ankit Acharya, Pratiksha Sharma, Ritu Chaudhary, Ayush Jain and Mukesh Kumar

Click here to read/download the Order