Anticipatory bail in GST investigation denied where specific allegations of document removal and custodial interrogation were considered necessary.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was considered in a GST-related matter involving allegations that the petitioner, acting with co-accused persons, operated a locker and removed crucial documents bearing on pending proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations were treated as specific and serious rather than vague, and custodial interrogation was viewed as necessary to trace the petitioner's role and the alleged concealment or removal of material evidence. Anticipatory bail was therefore not granted, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the serious allegations of operating the locker, removing crucial documents, and interfering with proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The petition was founded on a request for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The allegations against the petitioner were not general or vague; they specifically asserted that she had acted in concert with co-accused persons and had removed documents having a direct bearing on the pending proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation was considered necessary to unravel the role attributed to her and the alleged concealment or removal of material evidence.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not granted and the petition was dismissed.

---