Regular bail refused in alleged input tax credit fraud where Section 437(6) ground was not established and offence seriousness weighed heavily

Regular bail in an alleged fraudulent input tax credit prosecution was declined because the statutory ground under Section 437(6) CrPC was not made out on the facts, as the trial had not commenced and the prosecution was not shown to be causing delay. The court treated the allegations of use of fake firms, the seriousness of the economic offence, the large alleged loss to the exchequer, and the risk of absconding as factors against release. Bail was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail, including on the basis of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a prosecution alleging fraudulent input tax credit and substantial loss to the exchequer.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the alleged use of fake firms, the magnitude of the alleged loss, the presence of 31 witnesses, and the stage of the proceedings. The Court found that the prosecution was not shown to be delaying the case and that the ground under Section 437(6) was not available on the facts as the trial had not commenced. The seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of the accused absconding weighed against grant of bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail and the request for regular bail was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence, bail may be refused where the prosecution is not responsible for delay and the statutory ground under Section 437(6) is not established.

---