Regular bail in GST fake invoice prosecution granted where investigation was complete, cooperation was shown, and custody was unnecessary.

In a regular bail application arising from alleged GST tax evasion and fake invoice transactions, the HC held that cooperation with investigation, appearance on summons, and recorded statements under the CGST Act weighed in favour of release. It noted that further custodial detention was not shown to be necessary, and there was no material indicating a real risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Balancing the economic nature of the offence, the seriousness of the allegations, the custody already undergone, and the absence of demonstrated investigative need, the Court granted bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a GST prosecution involving alleged tax evasion and issuance of fake invoices, having regard to the nature of the accusation, the material collected, the extent of investigation completed, the accused's cooperation, and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.

Analysis: The accusation related to offences under the CGST Act, arising out of alleged bogus transactions, fake GST invoices, and substantial tax evasion. The materials recorded that the accused had appeared on summons, cooperated with the investigation, and made statements under the summons power of the Act. The Court also noted that there was no indication that further custodial detention was required for investigation, that the record did not show any likelihood of flight or witness tampering, and that the offence, though economic in nature, had to be balanced against the settled principles governing grant of regular bail. The Court considered the severity of punishment, the period already spent in custody, and the absence of any demonstrated investigative necessity for continued detention.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In a regular bail application, even in an economic offence under the GST law, bail may be granted where the accused has cooperated with investigation, further custodial detention is not shown to be necessary, and there is no reasonable apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence.

---