Sandeepraj Dhirsinh Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashutosh Dave appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Utkarsh Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Sharma waives service of rule for the respondent No.2.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with the arrest effectuated by the Respondent No.2 under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide Arrest Memorandum being File No. GEXCOM/ AE/INSP/1174/2025-AE for the offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(c) read with Section132(1)(l)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State and learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 have vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned Advocates have submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the papers of investigation, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The fact of the applicant though having not appeared before the Investigating Officer when the applicant had been summoned, yet the applicant having appeared voluntarily before the Investigating Officer on 27.10.2025 and given his statement and whereas the applicant was permitted to go back to his residence and whereas the applicant having been arrested on the next day when he had again voluntarily gone back to the office of the respondent No.2.

ii. The fact of the respondent No.2 not having sought any remand of the present applicant.

iii. While the allegation is with regard to the present applicant having taken Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs. 9.22 Crores from around 11 suppliers, yet, it would appear that the applicant had dealt with a total of 62 suppliers and had availed Input Tax Credit of 23.50 Crores, meaning thereby that not all of the suppliers to the present applicant were fraudulent and whereas less than half of the Input Tax Credit which had been availed by the present applicant even if the best case of the respondent No.2 is to be believed may have been fraudulent.

iv. The fact of the applicant being in custody since 28.10.2025.

v. Apprehension of learned Advocate Mr. Sharma that the applicant may try to influence the witness/investigation, could be allayed by imposing appropriate conditions.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the arrest effectuated by the Respondent No.2 under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide Arrest Memorandum being File No. GEXCOM/ AE/INSP/1174/2025-AE, on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;

[f] appear before the respondent No.2 once a week till the complaint (charge-sheet) is filed and thereafter once a month for a period of six months.

The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.

Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.

At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.