TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nomy and they are serious threat to the national economy. Case of the petitioner is similar to the Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India [ 2021 (12) TMI 1306 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and bail of the Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by this Court and Hon ble Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on depositing of ₹ 200 Crores. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Thus, it is not considered a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - the bail application s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Hon ble Apex Court has granted bail to the Vinaykant Ameta. So, as a matter of parity, petitioner be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in initial complaint, allegation was against the Vinaykant Ameta not against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent s department does not have adequate data for evasion of tax of ₹ 869 Crores. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case against the petitioner is on surmises and conjectures. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that maximum punishment in this case is 5 years and case agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal Vs. DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit and anr. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.20392/2021; (7) Shri Amit Agrawal and Anr. Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5809/2021; (8) Khekh Ram and Ors. Vs. NCB and Ors. In Criminal Appeal No.450/2016 and 38 of 2017 decided on 29.12.2017; (9) Yogesh Mittal Vs. Enforcement Directorate in bail Application No.1165/2017 decided on 16.01.2018; (10) Shobha Ram Vs. State Of U.P. reported in 1992 CRI. L.J. 1371 and (11) Yunis Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1999 CRI.L.J. 4094. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner and Vinay Kan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Mahender Mangal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13041/2021; (2) Lalit Goyal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13042/2021; (3) Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11339/2021; (4) Rishiraj Swami Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11286/2021; (5) Anil Kumar Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10608/2021; (6) Abhishek Singal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6304/2021; (7) Ramchandra Vishnoi Vs. Union Of India in S.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1870/2015 decided on 26.03.2015; (22) Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.2086/2010 decided on 29.10.2010; (23) Bharat Raj Punj Vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods and Service Tax in S.B. Criminal Writ No.76/2019 decided on 12.03.2019; (24) Suresh Sharma Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.7225/2014 decided on 26.06.2014 (25) Syed Mohammad Zama Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11193/2014 decided on 05.01.2015; (26) P Chidambaram Vs. Directorate Of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24; (27) Ajaj Ahamad Vs. State Of Odis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
