1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/GST/3064/2021-Gr-BO/ OADG-DGGI-JZU-JAIPUR for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 132(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 24.12.2021. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. There is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is neither proprietor of the Sagar Industries nor he is the owner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had retracted the statement given by him under Section 70 of G.S.T. Act. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had given Sagar Industries by way of agreement to Abhishek Gehlot. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that statements of the Abhishek Gahlot and Lalit Vyas cannot be read against him. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that maximum punishment in this case is 5 years and conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:(1) Shri Vikas Bansal, Versus Union Of India in Bail Application No.2381/2021; (2) Dananjay Singh Versus Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18825/2021; (3) Kishore Wadhwani Versus State of M.P. reported in 2022(43) G.S.T.L. 145(M.P.).

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had evaded GST around of ₹ 21 crores. He is the main culprit. During investigation, statements under Section 70 of G.S.T. Act were recorded and which are admissible in evidence. Learned senior standing counsel further submits that case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Dananjay Singh Versus Union Of India. Case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Vinay Kant Ameta Versus Union Of India and bail of the Vinay Kant Ameta was rejected by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court has granted the bail to the Vinay Kant Ameta on depositing of ₹ 200 crores. So, looking to the gravity of offence, bail be dismissed.

5. Considering the contentions put-forth by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Naresh Chandra Jajra S/o Late Shri Balkrishan Jajra shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties of ₹ 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.