GST fraud bail principles: limited prima facie role, no need for custodial interrogation, and summons statements are not confessions.

Bail in a GST fraud prosecution may be granted where custodial interrogation is no longer required, the accused's direct role appears limited on a prima facie assessment, and repeated examination has already occurred. Statements recorded under summons are relevant under the CGST framework, but they are not automatically confessional statements against the maker absent clear statutory authority. The cancellation of GST registrations of the connected firms was treated as a relevant bail-stage circumstance, while the alleged scale of ineligible input tax credit did not by itself make custody indispensable. On those considerations, bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail in a GST fraud prosecution, and whether statements recorded under summons and the alleged quantum of ineligible input tax credit justified continued custody.

Analysis: The allegation against the accused was examined on the basis of the material linking him directly to some firms and only indirectly to the larger alleged syndicate. The Court noted that the role attributed to him in respect of the firms directly connected with him was narrower than the overall allegation, and that the cancellation of GST registrations of those firms was a relevant circumstance at the bail stage. The Court further held that statements recorded under summons are relevant under the CGST Act, but there was nothing in the statutory scheme to treat such statements as confessional statements usable against the maker in the same manner as a confession. The Court also noted that the accused had already been examined repeatedly, that the period for custodial interrogation had elapsed, and that the offences under the CGST Act were not of such gravity as to make custody indispensable.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In a GST prosecution, bail may be granted where custodial interrogation is no longer required, the accused's direct role appears limited on a prima facie assessment, and statements recorded under summons are not to be treated as confessional statements against the maker absent clear statutory authority.

---