In a recent order dated July 3, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court addressed a bail application filed by Hansraj Gurjar, who is accused of orchestrating a significant GST fraud. Gurjar's second bail application was filed on the grounds of parity after the Supreme Court granted bail to co-accused Narendra Choudhary. However, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) alleged that Gurjar was the mastermind behind the creation of fake firms and fraudulent transactions that led to a GST evasion of approximately ₹48.41 crore.
Read more: Orissa High Court - Refund cannot be withheld merely because the department proposes to file an appeal, unless the statutory conditions for withholding the refund are fulfilled [Order attached]
Gurjar argued that the case against him relied heavily on statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, lacked independent corroborative evidence, and highlighted his lengthy custody and the slow progress of the trial. Despite these arguments, the court emphasized that the principle of parity is not an automatic justification for bail, especially when the accused has a more significant role in the alleged crime.
The court noted that there was prima facie evidence, including documentary and electronic records, that distinguished Gurjar's involvement from that of the co-accused. The court reiterated the need for a stricter approach in economic offences due to their complex nature and severe impact on public revenue. Consequently, the court dismissed Gurjar's bail application, citing the gravity of the allegations and his purported role as the syndicate's kingpin, thereby affirming that the mere grant of bail to a co-accused does not warrant similar relief to others involved in the crime.
Order Date - 03 July 2026
Parties: Hansraj Gurjar Vs Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit
Facts -
- Petitioner Hansraj Gurjar filed a second bail application after his first bail plea had been rejected. He argued that since the Supreme Court had granted bail to co-accused Narendra Choudhary, he too deserved bail on the principle of parity.
- The DGGI alleged that the petitioner was the mastermind behind multiple fake firms used to issue bogus invoices, fake e-way bills and fraudulently pass on ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), causing an alleged GST evasion of around ₹48.41 crore.
- The petitioner contended that the case was primarily based on statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, lacked independent corroborative evidence, and that the investigation had already concluded with the complaint being filed.
- He also relied on his prolonged custody, slow progress of the trial and the grant of bail to the co-accused, whereas the DGGI argued that his role was substantially more serious and supported by documentary, electronic and digital evidence.
Issue -
- Whether an accused in a GST fraud case can claim bail solely on the basis that a co-accused has been granted bail, despite allegations indicating a more significant role in the offence.
Order -
- The Court observed that parity is not an automatic or exclusive ground for granting bail. While considering parity, courts must independently examine the accused's specific role, the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence collected during the investigation instead of mechanically extending the benefit granted to another accused.
- The Court found prima facie material indicating that the petitioner played a central role in creating fictitious firms, generating fake invoices and e-way bills and facilitating fraudulent ITC transactions. Documentary evidence, electronic records, WhatsApp chats and statements recorded during the investigation distinguished his role from that of the co-accused.
- The Court reiterated that economic offences require a stricter approach in bail matters because they involve deliberate financial fraud, deep-rooted conspiracies and have serious consequences for the country's economy and public revenue. Therefore, such offences cannot be treated like ordinary criminal cases while considering bail.
- Since there was no substantial change in circumstances after the rejection of the first bail application except the co-accused obtaining bail, the Court held that this alone could not justify granting bail. Accordingly, the second bail application was dismissed considering the gravity of the allegations and the petitioner's alleged role as the kingpin of the syndicate.
