Anticipatory bail in GST invoice fraud was declined where custodial interrogation was needed and parity with a co-accused failed.

Allegations of GST invoice fraud and wrongful input tax credit were treated as a serious economic offence involving use of fake invoices and fictitious firm details to claim input credit. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation, so anticipatory bail was not justified on the facts. The plea of parity failed because the co-accused was said to have played a different and smaller role and had sought regular bail after custody, making the comparison inapposite. Anticipatory bail, as an exceptional relief, was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged GST invoice fraud and large-scale wrongful input tax credit on the ground that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and parity with a co-accused was available.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a prima facie case of cheating the State by using fake invoices and fictitious firm details to claim input credit of more than one crore rupees. In a serious economic offence of this nature, custodial interrogation was considered necessary for effective investigation. The plea of parity was rejected because the co-accused stood on a different footing, having faced a smaller alleged role and having sought regular bail after custody. Anticipatory bail, being an exceptional relief, was not found justified on the facts.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

---