Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Hansraj Gurjar S/O Sh. Ramgopal vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jp:16356) on 18 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16356]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16428/2025
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 Service Tax Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Mr. Arjun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Daksh Pareek, Adv.
Ms. Jaya Mitra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Sr. Adv. Standing
Counsel for DGGI with
Mr. Sourabh Jain, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Adv. with
Mr. Mohit Kumar Soni, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
Date of conclusion of arguments :: 15.04.2026
Date on which order was reserved :: 15.04.2026
Whether the full order or only the operative
part is pronounced :: Full Order
Date of pronouncement :: 18 .04.2026
Reportable
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS’) on
behalf of the accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been 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 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (2 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
Zonal Unit, for the offences under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(l) of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, ‘CGST
Act‘).
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he
has no involvement in the alleged offence. It is contended that the
entire case of the department rests primarily on the statements
recorded of the other co-accused- Narendra Chaudhary under
Section 70 of the CGST Act and apart from the same, there is no
independent or corroborative material on record connecting the
petitioner with the syndicate who is responsible for creating fake
firms and issuance of fake bills/invoices and e-ways bills for supply
of granite and marbles.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner satisfies the triple
test, inasmuch as he has no criminal antecedents and is a
permanent resident and, therefore, there is no likelihood of his
absconding. It is contended that the entire case rests on
documentary evidence already in the possession of the
Department and there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering
with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. The alleged
offences are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum
punishment of five years.
4. It is further submitted that the investigation in the present
case stands concluded and a detailed complaint has already been
filed and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required. The accused petitioner is in judicial custody since
13.08.2025 and has undergone a substantial period of
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (3 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
incarceration and no recovery of any document or material
remains to be effected from him.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that no
substantial progress has been made in the trial and the
proceedings are moving at a snail’s pace. The petitioner is in
custody for a considerable period and considering that the
maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132 of the CGST
Act is five years, the continued incarceration of the petitioner is
unjustified. Furthermore, in view of the mandate laid down under
Section 480(6) of BNSS (old, Section 437(6) Cr.P.C), the petitioner
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Lastly, it is submitted that considering the voluminous
documentary evidence and the multiplicity of transactions involved
in the present case, the trial is likely to take considerable time for
its conclusion. The petitioner has already been in custody for a
substantial period of time and continued incarceration would serve
no useful purpose and prolonged detention of the petitioner would
amount to an unwarranted curtailment of his personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore,
considering the period of custody already undergone by the
petitioner and likely delay in conclusion of trial, the present bail
application may be allowed.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court:-
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (4 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]A. State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2
SCC 364;
B. Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466;
C. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari,
(2019) 9 SCC 165;
D. Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, (Special Leave to
Petition (Crl.) No.10319 of 2022)
E. Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, (Special Leave to Petition
(Crl.) No. 4349/2025)
F. Naveen Yadav Vs. Union of India, (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.6426/2025)
G. Mohit Vijay Vs. Union of India, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.7605/2024)
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India
has opposed the bail application and submits that the petitioner is
actively involved in a well-organized syndicate engaged in large
scale GST evasion, as the petitioner in connivance with the other
co-accused, created and operated multiple fake firms by misusing
identities of other persons and generated bogus invoices, e-way
bills and transport documents, etc., without actual supply of
goods, thereby facilitating wrongful availment and passing on of
inadmissible Input Tax Credit.
9. Learned counsel submits that the investigation has revealed
that the petitioner was part of a larger conspiracy involving
clandestine supply of marble and granite across the country
without payment of GST and that the magnitude of tax evasion in
the present case is to the tune of approximately
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (5 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
Rs.48,41,21,094/- which is well above the threshold as prescribed
under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(l) read with Section 132(5) of
the CGST Act, making the offence cognizable and non-bailable.
10. It is further submitted that during the course of
investigation, search operations were conducted under Section
67(2) of the CGST Act and incriminating documents and electronic
evidence were recovered and after considering the statements of
the petitioner and other co-accused recorded under Section 70 of
the CGST Act, prima facie it is established that the petitioner was
involved in the alleged offence.
11. It is also submitted that the movement of goods was shown
through fictitious transport entities, namely M/s Shri Mahadev
Transport Company and M/s Har Har Mahadev Logistics, which
were found to be non-existent and part of the same fraudulent
network. The petitioner is not a mere facilitator but an active
participant in the entire conspiracy and has played a key role in
generation of fake invoices and e-way bills and in routing of
transactions through such shell entities.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the
provisions of Section 480(6) of the BNSS are not applicable in the
present case, as the complaint has been filed under the CGST Act,
which is a special statute and the trial is to be governed by the
provisions of the said act and not by the general provisions of
BNSS. It is further contended that even otherwise, the reasons
assigned by the learned trial Court while rejecting the bail
application, particularly that economic offences involving huge loss
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (6 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
to the public exchequer are required to be viewed with a stricter
approach which constitutes justified grounds for non-conclusion of
the trial within the stipulated period.
13. It is also contended that the earlier bail applications filed by
the petitioner have already been rejected by the learned Trial
Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 and thereafter by learned
Additional Session Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur vide
order dated 14.10.2025 and no change in circumstances has been
pointed out so as to warrant reconsideration of the present bail
application.
14. Lastly, it is argued that considering the nature and gravity of
the offence, the possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses
and tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out and,
therefore, the petitioner does not satisfy the parameters for grant
of bail. The bail applications of similarly placed co-accused persons
have already been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
and considering the fact that the economic offences constitute a
class apart, having serious repercussions on the financial health of
the country and are required to be viewed with a stricter
approach, therefore, considering the nature and gravity of offence,
the instant bail application may be dismissed.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon
the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well
as this Court:-
A. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439;
B. Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466;
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (7 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]C. Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641;
D. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC
528;
E. Syed Mohammad Zama Vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11193 & 13466 of 2014)
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
17. The allegations in the present case pertain to offences under
Section 132 of the CGST Act, which relate to fraudulent availment
and passing on of Input Tax Credit by way of issuance of fake
invoices and e-way bills without actual supply of goods. The
material collected during the course of investigation, including
documentary evidence as well as the statements of co-accused
persons recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, prima facie
indicates that the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged
offence and was operating more than two firms as part of the
alleged syndicate engaged in such activities.
18. The investigation has revealed that the accused petitioner, in
collaboration with co-accused Narendra Chaudhary and others,
orchestrated the creation of fake companies to facilitate the
transportation of taxable goods, including marble and granite,
using false or non-existent firms, counterfeit bills, and by
generating fraudulent e-way bills. The petitioner, acting as the
mastermind behind these sham documents, falsely indicated that
goods were transported when none were ever transported.
Furthermore, these fake companies and their suppliers in
Kishanganj and Rajasthan operated on a commission basis,
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (8 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
successfully evading GST totalling Rs. 48,41,21,094 crore on a
taxable value of Rs. 2,68,79,96,177/- with the possibility of
further escalation. The documents show bills issued in the names
of M/S Shri Mahadev Transport Company and Har Har Mahadev
Transport Company, in which the accused petitioner had a financial
interest, as revealed during the investigation. The WhatsApp chats
obtained from the petitioner exposes a startling reality, that
between the month of January, 2025 to July 2025, goods valued
at Rs. 63 crore were covertly smuggled out via M/S Rajasthan
Granite Marble and M/S Ganesh Enterprises, all without paying
GST, with the fake bills culminating in an estimated tax evasion of
Rs. 11.34 crore. The accused petitioner- Hansraj Gurjar, faces
serious charges under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(l) of the CGST
Act, which represents a stark example of white-collar crime that
impacts the economy. Therefore, at this stage, there is no
evidence to suggest wrongful implications and therefore,
considering the gravity of offence and the magnitude of the
amount involved, granting bail seems unwarranted.
19. Additionally, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court has rejected
the bail application filed on behalf of other co-accused Narender
Choudhary in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
14559/2025 vide order dated 28.11.2025 and the petitioner’s role
in the crime is not distinguishable.
20. In view of the nature of the accusations, the scale of the
alleged tax evasion and the material gathered during the course of
investigation, this Court finds that the case involves an economic
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (9 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
offence arising out of a structured and deep-rooted conspiracy,
resulting in significant loss to the public exchequer.
At this juncture, it becomes apposite, to refer to the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, wherein
it has been held that economic offences constitute a class apart
and are required to be viewed with a different approach while
considering the prayer for bail and held as under:-
“15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offence having deep
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offences affecting the economy of the country as
a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
16. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations.”
21. So far as the contention with regard to adopting a liberal
approach in view of the mandate of Section 480(6) of the BNSS is
concerned, this Court is of the view that the said provision does
not confer any absolute or indefeasible right upon the petitioner to
be released on bail. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states
that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without due legal process.
This foundational principle of our criminal laws underscores the
essential balance between justice and individual rights. The
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (10 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
authority granted to arrest and grant bail is a critical component of
punitive laws, emphasizing the necessity of a fair judicial process.
22. The procedures outlined in the CrPC, BNSS, and special
statutes concerning bail in non-bailable cases, especially those
involving life imprisonment or the death penalty are fundamentally
discretionary. These processes hinge on key factors, including the
particulars of the case, societal implications, the accused
petitioner conduct and the potential for evidence tampering and
the deliberate nature of economic crimes must be given
heightened consideration.
23. It is also to be noted that Section 480(6) of BNSS or 437(6)
of Cr.P.C does not impose mandatory requirements but instead
empowers the court to grant bail if a trial is not concluded within
60 days. Nevertheless, the Magistrate retains the authority to
deny bail taking into consideration the peculiar facts and
circumstance of the case. This procedural framework empowers
individuals to seek bail and mandates that the court provide
justified logic. These procedures stem directly from the
fundamental principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution and have consistently withstood judicial scrutiny.
24. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subhelal
v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 5 SCC 140, while interpreting
the erstwhile provision of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C, has observed
as under:-
“11. Later part of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the
Code empowers a Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning
reasons. In our view, the legislature has incorporated
this provision with a view to recognise right of an
accused for a speedy trial with a view to protect
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (11 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]individual liberty. At the same time, the legislature has
tried to strike a balance by allowing the Magistrate to
refuse bail by assigning reasons in a given set of
circumstances. Meaning thereby, that where in the
opinion of the Magistrate, it is not proper or
desirable or in the interest of justice to release
such accused on bail, he may refuse bail by
assigning reasons. The provisions of Section
437(6), as such, cannot be considered to be
mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to
grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in
favour of accused.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. Moreso, on this aspect, regards must be held to Section 479
of BNSS, which reads as follows: –
“479. The maximum period for which undertrial
prisoner can be detained.
(1) Where a person has, during the period of
investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an
offence under any law (not being an offence for which
the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been
specified as one of the punishments under that law)
undergone detention for a period extending up to one-
half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified
for that offence under that law, he shall be released by
the Court on bail:
Provided that where such person is a first-
time offender (who has never been convicted of
any offence in the past), he shall be released on
bond by the Court if he has undergone detention
for the period extending up to one-third of the
maximum period of imprisonment specified for
such offence under that law:
Provided further that the Court may, after hearing
the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by
it in writing, order the continued detention of such
person for a period longer than one-half of the said
period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond:
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (12 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]Provided also that no such person shall in any
case be detained during the period of investigation,
inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of
imprisonment provided for the said offence under that
law.
Explanation.-In computing the period of detention
under this section for granting bail, the period of
detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by
the accused shall be excluded.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and
subject to the third proviso thereof, where an
investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence
or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he
shall not be released on bail by the Court.
(3) The Superintendent of jail, where the accused
person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-
third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the
case may be, shall forthwith make an application in
writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1)
for the release of such person on bail.”
26. The proviso appended to the above section specifies that if a
person is a first-time offender and has undergone detention of
one-third of the punishment provided, he shall be released on bail,
which means thereby that the first-time offender may be detained
lawfully up to a period of one-third of the imprisonment provided
under the offence committed.
27. These procedures safeguards are enacted by the legislature
and fundamentally flow from Article 21 of the Constitution. This
established procedure firmly reinforces that the right to bail is
contingent upon the just discretion of the Court. It is also to be
noted that while bail is generally the rule and jail is the exception,
the decision rests firmly on objective criteria and judicial
discretion, ensuring that courts apply the same in accordance with
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16356] (13 of 13) [CRLMB-16428/2025]
the broad principles governing the granting or refusal of bail in
individual cases.
28. Furthermore, the contention with regard to the period of
custody undergone by the petitioner, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, by itself cannot be treated as a
determinative or sole factor for grant of bail, as mere length of
incarceration, in absence of any other mitigating circumstances,
does not entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, more
particularly when the allegations pertain to a serious economic
offence involving substantial loss to the public exchequer.
29. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and after
considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the magnitude
of the alleged evasion and the material available on record,
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court
is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
30. Accordingly, the instant bail application preferred by the
accused petitioner is hereby dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Ramesh Vaishnav/-38s
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:05:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)