Successive anticipatory bail in GST bogus billing allegations refused where no real change in circumstances was shown.

Successive anticipatory bail was treated as an extraordinary remedy requiring a real change in circumstances before reconsideration. In a GST-related bogus billing and tax evasion matter, the court found prima facie involvement in a serious economic offence and accepted that custodial interrogation could be necessary to protect an effective investigation. On that basis, the request for pre-arrest protection was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a successive application arising from allegations of a GST-related bogus billing and tax evasion scam.

Analysis: The application was considered against the backdrop of serious allegations involving a coordinated economic offence, prior unsuccessful attempts to obtain anticipatory bail, and the absence of any material change in circumstances. The record was viewed as showing prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged scam and the need to preserve the effectiveness of the investigation. Reliance was placed on the settled approach that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted sparingly, particularly where custodial interrogation may aid a free and fair investigation in a serious economic offence.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to pre-arrest protection, and the request for anticipatory bail failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive anticipatory bail should not be entertained in the absence of a real change in circumstances, and pre-arrest bail ought to be declined where the allegations disclose a serious economic offence and custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation.

---