Bail in GST prosecution granted where custody was prolonged, trial had not progressed, and co-accused already secured relief.

Bail under Section 439 CrPC was found appropriate where the accused had remained in custody for a considerable period, the charge had not been framed, and the trial had stalled because of interim orders in connected proceedings. The court also noted that co-accused, including the alleged kingpin, had already been granted bail and there was no material showing involvement in any other criminal case. On these facts, continued detention was considered unnecessary and unlikely to serve any useful purpose pending trial, so bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, facing prosecution under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petitioner was in custody for a considerable period, the charge had not yet been framed, and the trial had not progressed because of interim orders passed in connected proceedings. Bail had already been granted to co-accused, including the alleged kingpin, and there was no material showing that the petitioner was involved in any other criminal case. In these circumstances, further detention was considered unnecessary and unlikely to serve any useful purpose pending trial.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail.

---