Bail in GST prosecution refused where serious input tax credit allegations and early-stage trial outweighed prolonged custody.

Bail was refused in a GST prosecution because the allegations involved wrongful input tax credit, the fifth bail request showed no sufficient change in circumstances, and the trial remained at an early evidentiary stage with only part of the prosecution evidence recorded. The Court treated the seriousness of the alleged offence and the incomplete trial as outweighing the custody period of about one year and eight months, so bail was dismissed. The Trial Court was nevertheless directed to conclude the trial within six months and, if necessary, hold day-to-day hearings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The application was the fifth bail request. The allegations related to wrongful input tax credit involving a substantial amount, the case was still at the stage of pre-charge evidence, and only part of the prosecution evidence had been recorded. The custody period was about one year and eight months. In view of the seriousness of the and the absence of sufficient change in circumstances, bail was not considered justified. The Court nevertheless directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months and, if required, to fix day-to-day hearing dates.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail and the fifth bail application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was permitted to continue, while the Trial Court was directed to expedite and complete the trial within six months.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious GST offence, prolonged custody by itself does not warrant bail where the trial is still at an early evidentiary stage and no sufficient change in circumstances is shown.

---