Serious economic offence in alleged GST evasion case led to refusal of bail at the investigation stage.

Bail was refused in a prosecution alleging large-scale GST evasion, with the Court treating the accusations against the company director as a serious economic offence. The Court noted the alleged substantial tax evasion, seizure of goods from the premises, and the petitioner's voluntary deposit made under protest. Applying the settled approach that economic offences stand on a different footing from ordinary offences because they affect the national economy, the Court found that the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation did not justify exercise of bail jurisdiction. The application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging large-scale GST evasion under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petitioner was alleged to be a director in the company involved in the tax-evasion case. The Court noted the claimed evasion of a very substantial amount of GST, the seizure of goods from the premises, and the voluntary deposit made as protest. On the facts placed before it, the Court treated the allegations as disclosing a serious economic offence and relied on the settled approach that economic offenders stand on a different footing from ordinary offenders because such offences affect the national economy. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the Court found no ground to exercise bail jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the application was dismissed.

---