Economic offence bail granted where no concrete risk of tampering was shown and conditions could manage cooperation concerns.

Bail was granted to an accused under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in an alleged large-scale input tax credit fraud, as the Court noted that economic offences require scrutiny but do not create an absolute bar to bail. It also found that continued custody was not justified merely because further investigation was pending, especially after the prosecution report had been filed. General apprehensions of tampering with evidence or non-cooperation were insufficient where the material was mainly documentary and electronic, and any risk could be addressed through bail conditions, including cancellation for breach.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in the context of an alleged large-scale input tax credit fraud. (ii) Whether the pendency of further investigation and the prosecution's apprehension of tampering with evidence or non-cooperation justified continued custody.

Issue (i): Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in the context of an alleged large-scale input tax credit fraud.

Analysis: The allegations concerned an economic offence involving a substantial alleged bogus input tax credit mechanism. The Court noted the settled principle that economic offences deserve careful scrutiny in bail matters, but there is no absolute bar on bail. Bail remains a matter of judicial discretion depending on the facts of each case. The Court also considered that a co-accused said to be the mastermind had already been granted bail, and the transactions attributed to the petitioner were part of the same fraudulent episode.

Conclusion: Bail was granted in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the pendency of further investigation and the prosecution's apprehension of tampering with evidence or non-cooperation justified continued custody.

Analysis: The Court held that further investigation cannot justify indefinite detention, especially when the initial prosecution report had already been filed and the matter had remained pending for a substantial period. It found no concrete basis to accept the apprehension of tampering with evidence, as the material was largely document-based and stored electronically. The possibility of non-cooperation could be addressed by bail conditions, and breach of such conditions could invite cancellation of bail.

Conclusion: The prosecution's grounds for refusing bail were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The bail application was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on terms and conditions imposed by the court concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: In an economic offence, continued custody cannot be sustained merely because further investigation is open or because of a generalized apprehension of tampering, where no concrete risk is shown and bail can be regulated by conditions.

---