Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Hansraj Gurjar S/O Sh. Ramgopal vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:24654]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8382/2026
URN: CRLMB / 15283U / 2026
Hansraj Gurjar S/o Sh. Ramgopal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Ward No. 55, Avana Ki Paal (Dhani), Kishangarh, District Ajmer
(Raj.) (Currently Confined To Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Intelligence Officer, Director General Of
Goods And Services Tax Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Arjun Singh,
Mr. Daksh Pareek
Mr. Ashish Kabra
Mr. Moin Khan
Mr. Keshav Parashar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior standing
counsel for DGGI with Mr. Saurabh
Jain
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Date of conclusion of arguments : 01/07/2026
Date on which the order was reserved : 01/07/2026
Whether the full order or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Order
Date of pronouncement : 03/07/2026
Order
01/07/2026
1. The instant second bail application has been preferred under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
brevity, ‘BNSS’) by the accused-petitioner, who was arrested in
connection with Case No. F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/755/2025-Gr-N
registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]
Zonal Unit, Jaipur, for the offences punishable under Sections
132(1)(a), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(h) and 132(1)(l) of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity, ‘CGST Act‘).
2. It is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the present case and has no involvement in the alleged offence.
It is contended that the respondent agency- DGGI has registered
the present case solely on the basis of statements recorded under
Section 70 of the CGST Act without there being any independent
or legally admissible material to substantiate the allegations. It is
submitted that the allegations regarding operation of fake firms,
issuance of fake invoices and e-way bills and clandestine
movement of marble and granite are wholly unsubstantiated and
rest merely upon the statements allegedly recorded during
investigation.
3. It is also contended that the earlier bail application of the
accused petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16428/2025
vide order dated 18.04.2026. However, subsequent thereto, a
material change in circumstances has arisen inasmuch as co-
accused- Narendra Choudhary, whose role is alleged to be similar
to that of the petitioner, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 22.05.2026 passed in the matter
of Narendra Chaudhary vs. Union of India [SLP (Crl.)
No.7510/2026], therefore, it is argued that the petitioner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity as the role
attributed to the accused petitioner is not distinguishable from
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]
that of the co-accused- Narendra. It is further submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the
prolonged period of incarceration undergone by the co-accused
while granting bail, therefore, the accused-petitioner, who was
arrested on 13.08.2025, has also remained in custody for a
considerable period and deserves similar relief.
4. It is further contended that the entire prosecution case rests
upon statements allegedly recorded under coercion and there is no
independent corroborative evidence connecting the petitioner with
the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was argued that even the
statement of co-accused Narendra Choudhary recorded on
12.08.2025 does not find mention of the name of the accused
petitioner amongst the alleged accomplices, therefore, the
respondent does not have any legally admissible material against
the accused-petitioner except the petitioner’s own statement,
which is alleged to have been recorded under pressure.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation stands
concluded and the complaint has already been filed before the
competent Court and all the documentary evidence, electronic
devices and other incriminating material are already in possession
of the investigating agency, therefore, there is no possibility of the
petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing the prosecution
witnesses. The accused petitioner has remained in custody for a
substantial period and the trial is proceeding at a slow pace and
out of 28 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been
examined till date and further trial is likely to take considerable
time for its conclusion. It is also contended that continued
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]
incarceration of the petitioner would amount to an unreasonable
deprivation of his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. In support of his argument, reliance was
placed upon the case of: Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of
India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 314; Vineet Jain vs. Union of
India, 2025 INSC 563; Naveen Yadav vs. Union of India &
Anr., S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6427
of 2025, dated 08.01.2026.
6. Learned counsel further argued that under Section 132(3) of
the CGST Act, the minimum prescribed punishment is of six
months and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration
exceeding the said period. It is also submitted that the
proceedings have been initiated without issuance of a show cause
notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act and, therefore,
the prosecution itself suffers from legal infirmity. The accused-
petitioner has cooperated throughout the investigation, there is no
likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution
evidence and he undertakes to abide by any condition that may be
imposed by this Court, therefore, it is prayed that considering the
subsequent grant of bail to the co-accused on the principle of
parity and the prolonged period of incarceration undergone by the
accused-petitioner, the present bail application may be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the case
of the present petitioner is not on similar footing with that of the
other co-accused who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, therefore, the principle of parity has no
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]
application in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that
the petitioner is the principal architect and kingpin of the entire
fraudulent syndicate and his role is substantially different and
graver than that of the other accused persons.
8. Learned counsel submits that the investigation has revealed
that the petitioner actively orchestrated the creation and operation
of multiple fictitious firms, generated fake invoices, bogus e-way
bills and transport documents without actual movement of goods
and facilitated fraudulent availment and passing on of inadmissible
Input Tax Credit involving tax evasion of approximately Rs.
48,41,21,094 on a taxable value of Rs. 2,68,79,96,177/-. It is
submitted that the petitioner’s own statement recorded under
Section 70 of the CGST Act, coupled with documentary evidence,
electronic evidence, WhatsApp chats, seized material and
statements of the co-accused, prima facie establish his active
participation in the conspiracy. It is further submitted that one of
the fake firms was admittedly transferred by co-accused Narendra
Choudhary to the present petitioner and thereafter utilised for
issuance of fake invoices and e-way bills.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s first bail
application was dismissed by this Court after detailed
consideration of the allegations, the gravity of the offence and the
material collected during investigation and except the subsequent
grant of bail to the co-accused by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
there exists no change in circumstances which warrants
reconsideration. It is further contended that completion of six
months’ custody does not confer any statutory right upon the
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]
petitioner to seek bail under the CGST Act and the contention
regarding absence of a show cause notice is wholly misconceived.
10. Lastly, it is submitted that economic offences constitute a
class apart and require a stricter approach while considering the
prayer for bail, therefore, considering the magnitude of the alleged
tax evasion, the petitioner’s dominant role in the conspiracy and
the possibility of influencing witnesses, it is prayed that the instant
second bail application deserves to be dismissed.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
12. The first bail application preferred by the accused-petitioner
came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2026
after considering the nature of allegations, the material collected
during investigation and the specific role attributed to the
petitioner. It is well settled that a successive bail application is
maintainable only upon a substantial change in the facts or
circumstances having a direct bearing on the merits of the case.
In the present case, the petitioner seeks reconsideration of his
prayer for bail primarily on the ground that co-accused Narendra
Choudhary has subsequently been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and therefore, he is also entitled to be enlarged on
bail on the principle of parity.
13. This Court is unable to persuade itself to accept the aforesaid
contention. It is a settled proposition of law that parity, by itself, is
not the sole or determinative ground for grant of bail as while
considering the plea of parity, the Court is required to
independently examine the individual role attributed to the
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]
accused, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material
collected during investigation and all other relevant circumstances.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Sagar vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 1370, reiterated that the principle
of parity cannot be applied mechanically and the Court must
independently assess the individual role of the accused before
extending the benefit of bail and observed as under:-
“10. The question that arises for consideration is
whether, as done by the High Court in the impugned
order, parity with the co-accused persons can be
the sole reason for granting bail. Bail has often been
stated to be the rule, and jail, the exception. This cannot
be emphasized enough. At the same time, this,
however, does not mean that the relief of bail is to
be granted without due regard to the circumstances
involved in the alleged offence for which the
accused person has been arrested. In this regard, it
has to be noted that a Court, while granting bail, has to
consider a number of aspects…
11. It is clear from the perusal of the above factors that
the High Court failed to consider all that was relevant. On
parity, it is necessary to refer to Ramesh Bhavan
Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and
Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 230. This Court observed that
while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same
must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be
utilized solely because another accused person was
granted bail in connection with the same offence,
and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter
of right…
12. The High Court appears, plainly, to have
erroneously granted bail to the accused-respondent
on the sole ground of parity which it has
misunderstood as a tool of direct application as
opposed to parity being focused on the role played
by the accused and not the thread of the same
offence being the only common factor between the
accused persons. On this count alone we can set(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]aside the impugned judgment and order. However,
we propose not to do so and proceed to delve further.
14. What flows from the above judgments, which have
been referred to, only to the limited extent indicated
above, is that the High Courts speak in one voice that
parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be
granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct position
in law.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. Upon considering the material available on record, this Court
finds that the petitioner cannot be placed on the same footing as
the co-accused merely because the latter has been enlarged on
bail. The material collected during investigation prima facie
indicates the involvement of the accused petitioner in creation and
operation of fictitious firms, generation of fake invoices and e-way
bills and facilitation of clandestine movement of goods resulting in
alleged GST evasion to the tune of approximately Rs.
48,41,21,094 and the documentary evidence, electronic evidence,
WhatsApp chats and statements recorded under Section 70 of the
CGST Act prima facie disclose the petitioner’s direct and
substantial involvement in the commission of the alleged offences.
Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner is different and
substantially graver than that of the co-accused- Narendra
Choudhary and hence, the order granting bail to the co-accused
cannot constitute a ground for extending the same benefit to the
present petitioner.
16. Furthermore, it is well settled that economic offences
constitute a class apart and are required to be viewed with a
different approach while considering the prayer for bail as such
offences involve deep-rooted conspiracies, committed with
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24654] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-8382/2026]
deliberate design for personal gain and have serious repercussions
on the economy and the financial health of the nation. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI,
(2013) 7 SCC 439, observed that economic offences constitute a
class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail.
17. Therefore, having regard to the nature and gravity of
allegations levelled against the petitioner, the magnitude of the
alleged tax evasion, the prima facie material collected during
investigation, the dominant role attributed to the petitioner as the
kingpin of the alleged syndicate and the settled principles
governing grant of bail in economic offences, this Court does not
find any substantial change in circumstances warranting
interference with the earlier order rejecting bail. The mere fact
that the other co-accused has subsequently been enlarged on bail
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the peculiar facts and
circumstance of the present case, cannot by itself entitle the
present accused petitioner to benefit bail as a matter of right.
18. Accordingly, the instant second bail application preferred by
the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
43/CHETNA BEHRANI
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 03:26:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:22:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
