Supreme Court of India · GST · AKHB case note
Hansraj Gurjar v. Union of India
Criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 13041/2026; appeal number is blank in the signed source.
No neutral or reported citation is printed in the official source PDF. ·
Final disposal of the criminal appeal after grant of leave; limited to bail, without determining guilt or tax liability.
Hansraj Gurjar on conditional regular bail.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
Hansraj Gurjar challenged the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench’s order of 3 July 2026 in SBCRLMIBA No. 8382/2026. He sought regular bail in a complaint dated 10 October 2025 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur-II.
The Supreme Court described the complaint as alleging offences under section 132(1)(a), (e), (f), (h) and (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It heard senior counsel for the appellant and the Additional Solicitor General for the Union. The source supplies neither an alleged tax amount nor the precise duration of custody.
Source: Official PDF pp. 1–2, signed order; p. 3, High Court and proceeding identifiers.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Court took account of three circumstances: a co-accused had already been released on bail, the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, and the stage of trial. It considered regular bail appropriate in that setting.
This is a short, fact-sensitive bail decision. The source does not identify the co-accused, specify a minimum custody period for release, or announce automatic parity. It does not determine whether any alleged GST offence was proved.
Source: Official PDF p. 2, signed reasons.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Supreme Court granted leave, set aside the impugned order and granted regular bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.
The Court did not itself set a bond amount, number of sureties, tax deposit or detailed reporting conditions. The record of proceedings confirms that the appeal was allowed in terms of the signed order.
Source: Official PDF pp. 1–2, signed order; p. 4, corresponding record of proceedings.
04 · In favour of
The criminal appeal was finally allowed on the custody question. Bail implementation remained subject to the trial court’s terms. The prosecution, criminal guilt and any tax liability were not finally adjudicated by this order.
Source: Official PDF p. 2, operative order.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: A bail submission relying on this decision should establish the actual custody period, trial status and the relevant similarities with the co-accused who obtained bail. Those matters require a supported factual comparison; the order does not make parity automatic.
Obtain the trial court’s release order for the complete conditions and check any later modification or cancellation. Retain the offence clauses exactly as printed in the Supreme Court source, including clause (e), and avoid importing an alleged tax amount or custody duration from summaries. Keep bail relief distinct from the prosecution’s proof of offence and any GST adjudication or recovery.
Source: AKHB analysis based on official PDF pp. 1–4; no additional judicial holding.
Source and verification
Official Supreme Court PDF: 2-page signed order followed by 2-page record of proceedings. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete 4-page official PDF read and all pages visually checked: signed order on pages 1–2, followed by the record of proceedings. Date, bench, party identity and disposal verified against both components.
Source checked 2026-10-18. Paragraph references follow the identified official judgment; PDF-page references follow that source file. The court’s printed paragraph numbers may differ from commercial reporting.
The signed order and record of proceedings both identify the decision date as 10 September 2026 and the bench as M.M. Sundresh and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
The signed source leaves the criminal-appeal number blank. Identification is through SLP (Criminal) No. 13041/2026; the note does not invent an appeal number.
The precise custody duration, identity of the co-accused, alleged tax amount and detailed bail conditions are not supplied in this four-page source.
Statutory scope
The source expressly prints clause (e). This note preserves that source description and does not substitute a different clause or independently verify the complaint’s complete statutory charges.
Later treatment and present applicability
This note records the Supreme Court order as delivered. The subsequent prosecution, implementation of bail directions and any later modification or cancellation have not been comprehensively checked. Source verification does not establish that no later proceedings exist.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
AI-assisted research checked against the identified primary source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on the facts, tax period, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless the note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.