Rajasthan High Court Rejects Bail Application Of Man Accused Of Creating Dummy Firms To Evade ₹704 Crore In GST Payments
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Ankit Bansal, accused in a Rs. 704 Crore GST evasion scam, on account of his concealment of past criminal antecedents, attempt to abscond from custody using his influence and power, and the magnitude of the siphoned amount.The bench of Justice Anand Sharma rejected the argument of parity on account of the co-accused Mr. Rajesh Goyal being released on...
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Ankit Bansal, accused in a Rs. 704 Crore GST evasion scam, on account of his concealment of past criminal antecedents, attempt to abscond from custody using his influence and power, and the magnitude of the siphoned amount.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma rejected the argument of parity on account of the co-accused Mr. Rajesh Goyal being released on bail, ruling that while applying the principle of parity, conduct and role of the accused had to be focused upon.
It was further opined that in economic offences, where the accused was well resourced and capable of manipulating evidence or evading process, their past and present conduct became crucial which could not be ignored while exercising judicial discretion for bail.
“…where the amount involved runs into hundreds of crores and has serious implications over the economic fabric of the country, it cannot be said to be a routine matter; and hence, quantum is directly relevant in assessing the seriousness of the offence and the necessity of custody.”
The Court was hearing the bail application filed by the petitioner, Mr. Ankit Bansal, who was accused of the offences punishable under Section 132, CGST Act, 2017.
It was alleged that the accused, through a network of around 353 dummy/non-existent firms and fictitious invoices, orchestrated a tax evasion scheme by generating fake instrument, thereby creating an alleged picture of legitimate transactions to siphon off statutory tax credit and GST evasion of around Rs. 704 Crores.
It was the case of the applicant that his arrest was made in an illegal manner, without following procures established by law followed by his illegal custody, which was in violation of his rights under Articles 21 and 22.
The applicant submitted that the entire case was based on documentary evidence which was already in possession of the investigating agency, and there was no need for custodial interrogation. Further, it was highlighted that the co-accused in the case, Mr. Rajesh Goyal, was already enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of the Court.
On the contrary, while denying the arguments of the arrest and custody being illegal, it was highlighted on behalf of the State that firstly, an FIR was also lodged against the applicant by the Cyber Crime office in 2021, a fact which was concealed by the applicant.
Further, the counsel highlighted that when the applicant was taken to the SMS hospital for medical treatment, misusing his influence, power & resources, he connived with 4 police guards & his family members, and attempted to abscond from custody.
It was argued that the fraud was not an isolated event but part of a well-engineered conspiracy to defraud the government exchequer and undermining the integrity of the indirect tax regime.
After hearing the contentions, the Court took into account the magnitude of the tax evasion and its potential impact on the economy. Reference was made to precedents to reiterate that economic offences were more serious than ordinary crimes since they involved deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to public interest.
Rejecting the argument of parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail, the Court specifically referred to the “extraordinary circumstances” in the applicant's case.
“there are clear and manifest antecedents against the petitioner (which have been suppressed by the petitioner) and the magnitude of allegations against him is quite higher, which is crossing more than 700 Crores. Since during the pendency of instant bail application, the accused-petitioner has attempted to abscond, which evidently involves extraordinary circumstances…Hence, in the light of the above possibility of his absconding and influencing the witnesses can not be ruled out.”
The Court further opined that while determining bail in economic offences, the magnitude of siphoned amount was not merely incidental but rather integral indicator of the severity of the offence, potential influence over the witnesses or the system, and the possible adverse impact on public confidence in financial integrity and the rule of law.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.
Title: Ankit Bansal v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 216