Regular bail in CGST prosecution granted where accused was not named initially, no recovery was made, and parity favoured release.

Regular bail was granted in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 because the petitioner was not initially named as an accused, was implicated mainly through co-accused statements, and no recovery was made from him. The court also noted prolonged custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and that similarly placed co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. On those facts, and without expressing any view on the merits, the court found it just and proper to release the petitioner on regular bail.

---

---

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

Analysis: The petitioner was not initially named as an accused and was implicated mainly on the basis of statements of co-accused. Nothing was recovered from him. He had been in custody since 17.03.2023, and the trial was likely to take time. Bail had already been granted to similarly placed co-accused. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to regular bail.

---