Regular bail in GST evasion racket turned on prima facie involvement, while peripheral professional assistance justified release.

In a GST evasion and forgery racket, regular bail was refused where investigation showed prima facie direct involvement in a large-scale, organised scheme using bogus firms, fabricated documents, false stamps and banking transactions to evade tax and to the exchequer. Bail was also declined to petitioners linked with the bogus firms and transactions. By contrast, bail was granted to the petitioner whose role was confined to professional assistance in incorporating firms, because the material did not show participation in the main conspiracy and continued pre-trial detention was not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether regular bail was liable to be granted to the petitioners accused of involvement in an alleged GST evasion and forgery racket; (ii) whether the petitioner alleged to have rendered only professional assistance in incorporation of firms was entitled to bail.

Issue (i): Whether regular bail was liable to be granted to the petitioners accused of involvement in an alleged GST evasion and forgery racket.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a large-scale and organised scheme involving bogus firms, fabricated documents, false stamps, and banking transactions used to evade GST and cause substantial loss to the State exchequer. The material collected during investigation indicated the active role of the principal accused and the complicity of the other accused linked with the bogus firms and transactions. In such circumstances, the Court treated the accusations as sufficiently serious to deny bail to those against whom the incriminating material prima facie showed direct involvement.

Conclusion: Bail was declined to the accused found prima facie involved in the scam, including the principal accused and the petitioners connected with the bogus firms.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner alleged to have rendered only professional assistance in incorporation of firms was entitled to bail.

Analysis: The role attributed to this petitioner was limited to professional assistance in incorporation of firms, and at that stage the material did not establish that he had joined the main accused or benefited beyond professional fees. The Court also took note of the length of his pre-trial incarceration and found that further detention would not serve a useful purpose.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner whose role was found to be peripheral and professional in nature.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of with bail refused to the accused against whom prima facie complicity in the GST evasion racket was made out, and bail granted to the petitioner whose involvement was confined to professional assistance.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence involving organised tax evasion and substantial loss to the exchequer, regular bail may be refused where investigation reveals prima facie direct involvement, but bail may still be granted where the accused's role appears peripheral and continued pre-trial detention is unjustified.

---