Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1/Union of India and opposite party no.2/C.G.S.T. Department, Meerut and perused the record.

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the summoning order dated 02.11.2021 issued by Superintendent, Central GST Commissionerate, Meerut U/s 70 & 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, Police Station Central G.S.T. Commissioner, District Meerut.

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Additional Solicitor General of India and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. This anticipatory bail application is thus being heard. Grant of further time to the learned Standing Counsel as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

Learned counsels for the parties state that the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. be decided at this stage only. Learned counsel for the opposite party states that he has received his instructions and has no objection to the matter being decided at this stage.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that Rajat Maheshwari a partner of the firm in question was initially granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail No. 19777 of 2021 (Rajat Maheshwari Vs. Union of India and another) which was subsequently confirmed vide order dated 06.01.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The copies of the orders have been placed before the Court which are collectively annexed as annexure 3 to the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application. It is argued that the case of the applicant is identical to that of Rajat Maheshwari. The applicant has received summons dated 02.11.2021 issued by the opposite party no.2. Since the amount involved is to the tune of ₹ 6.18 crore approximately as such the matter will be non bailable as the offence with regards to an amount greater than five crore would become non bailable otherwise it would be bailable offence. It is argued that since Rajat Maheshwari a partner of the firm in question has been granted anticipatory bail, the case of the applicant is of a parity. It is assured that the applicant will cooperate in the proceedings before the GST Authorities. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 1 and 48 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Rajat Maheshwari who is a partner of the firm, has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.12.2021 which was confirmed vide order dated 06.01.2022. It is argued that there are chances of the applicant not cooperating with the department during proceedings therein.

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that co-accused Rajat Maheshwari who is a partner in the firm has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

Let the applicant Dishu Jain in the event of his arrest in pursuance of summoning order dated 02.11.2021, under Section 70, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, P.S. Central G.S.T. Commissioner, Meerut be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/– with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Officer of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned officer of Central Goods and Services Tax Act as and when required;

(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any officer concerned;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned Officer of Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

In default of any of the conditions, the concerned Officer of Central Goods and Services Tax Act is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the concerned Officer of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, within a week from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.