Regular bail in fake input tax credit allegations was refused where custody was short and the case appeared prima facie serious

Regular bail was declined in a GST prosecution alleging availing of fake input tax credit through multiple firms. The HC treated the allegations as serious, noted that the custodial period was less than three months, and found no sufficient ground to extend bail at that stage. The decision reflects that, where the allegations disclose a prima facie case requiring further adjudication and custody is still short, regular bail may be refused pending trial or further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution alleging availment of fake input tax credit under the GST law.

Analysis: The petition was for regular bail under the criminal procedure law in a case involving allegations under the GST enactment. The allegations were that the petitioner, through multiple firms, had availed fake input tax credit of substantial value. The Court noted that the alleged wrongdoing was serious and that the petitioner had been in custody for less than three months. On that assessment, the Court found no sufficient ground to extend the concession of regular bail at that stage.

Conclusion: Regular bail was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not succeed, and the accused remained in custody pending further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail application arising from serious allegations of fake input tax credit, the Court may decline regular bail where the custodial period is short and the allegations disclose a prima facie case requiring further adjudication.

---