Businessman Accused of Rs. 217 Crore GST Fraud Under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(k) Granted Bail After Significant Custody Period

The HC granted regular bail to the applicant charged under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Despite the case involving claims of Rs. 217 crores, the court considered the completed investigation, applicant's custody period, bail granted to co-accused, maximum sentence applicable, and applicant's willingness to deposit a significant sum. Following the Sanjay Chandra precedent, bail was granted with conditions including executing a personal bond, surrendering passport, restricted movement, monthly police reporting, periodic deposits, and non-interference with the investigation.

---

---

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking regular bail in connection with a case registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant's senior advocate argued for bail, emphasizing the nature of the offence and proposing suitable conditions. On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. The respondent Department's senior advocate highlighted the complexity of the investigation, the magnitude of the claims amounting to Rs. 217 crores, and the unresolved aspects of the case, including identifying the supplier and buyer of invoices and tracing the money trail through Angadia.

The court considered various aspects, including the conclusion of the investigation upon filing the complaint, the applicant's custody since a specific date, and the bail granted to co-accused involved in the fraud scheme. The court also took into account the maximum sentence applicable, the applicant's willingness to deposit a significant sum within a specified period, and the absence of any adverse circumstances against the applicant as per the Investigating Officer's instructions. The court referred to a legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

After evaluating the allegations without delving into detailed evidence, the court exercised discretion and granted the applicant regular bail. The bail order included conditions such as executing a personal bond, surrendering passport, not leaving the state without permission, marking monthly presence at the police station, periodic deposit of a specified amount, providing residence details, and not interfering with the investigation. The court emphasized that the trial court should not be influenced by its preliminary observations while granting bail.

The court directed the authorities to release the applicant unless required for another offence, with the provision for appropriate action in case of breaching bail conditions. The bail bond execution was assigned to the lower court, which could modify or relax the conditions as per legal requirements. The judgment concluded by allowing the application in the specified terms and granting permission for direct service.

---