Bail in GST fake invoice cases can be refused where investigation continues and witness tampering risk remains.

Regular bail was refused in a GST prosecution alleging fake invoices and wrongful input tax credit where the record disclosed a prima facie manipulation through fictitious or non-functional firms and invoices without actual supply. The alleged conduct was treated as a serious economic offence affecting public revenue, and the continuing investigation, incomplete recovery of incriminating material, and credible risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses justified custody. The applicant's reliance on custody duration and cited precedents was found insufficient to warrant release on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a case alleging fake invoices and wrongful availment of input tax credit under the goods and services tax regime, where the investigation was stated to be at a nascent stage and there was an apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The material placed on record was found to disclose a prima facie case of manipulation through fictitious or non-functional firms and raising of false invoices without actual supply of goods or services. The Court treated the alleged conduct as an economic offence of a serious nature affecting public revenue. It also noted that the investigation was still continuing, that incriminating material was yet to be fully recovered, and that there was a real apprehension of interference with the investigation and influence over witnesses. In these circumstances, the Court held that the plea based on custody period and the cited precedents did not justify release on bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was refused and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious economic offences involving alleged fake invoicing and fraudulent input tax credit, bail may be declined where the investigation is ongoing and there is a credible risk of interference with evidence or witnesses.

---