1. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. Case No. IV(06)121/AE/Alwar/2020 was registered for offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner- Hemant Kumar Singhal that case of the petitioner would not travel beyond Section 132(1)(f) of C.G.S.T. Act, the maximum punishment for which as provided under the Act is only six months. It is contended that petitioner has not created any fake bills/invoices and has not availed or passed on any input tax credit. It is also contended that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of three months. The main accused in this case is Abhishek Singhal, who is absconding.

4. It is also contended that petitioner has appeared before the Authorities and has answered their queries. Petitioner-Hemant Kumar Singhal is pursuing his C.A. Course and his brother is a registered C.A., who is stated to be the main accused and was instrumental in getting GST registration of 38 fake firms. It is only because he is brother of the main accused that he has been arrested.

5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner- Pankaj Garg that petitioner is a businessman who is running a petrol pump and the only allegation against him is that his mobile number has been mentioned in registration of S.L. Trading Company. It is argued that petitioner’s documents were used by Abhishek Singhal, for which he has lodged an FIR against him. The total input tax credit as calculated by the Authorities is to the tune of around 6 crores. There is no evidence that petitioner has availed any input tax credit or has produced any fake bills/invoices to facilitate claiming of input tax credit.

6. It is also contended that petitioner was not instrumental in creation of the fake firms. Even if it is considered that he was also a party to the creation of the fake firms, the act would fall under Section 132(1)(f) of the C.G.S.T. Act, the maximum sentence for which is six months.

7. Counsels for the petitioners have placed reliance on Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI [2012(1) SCC 40].

8. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of Union of India have opposed these bail applications. It is contended that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country.

9. Counsels for Union of India have placed reliance on P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. UOI [SLP (Crl.) No.4430/2019].

10. I have considered the contentions.

11. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioners, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

12. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

13. However, it is made clear that petitioners will surrender their passport to the Court and will not leave India without taking prior permission from the Court.

14. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.