Anticipatory bail in GST evasion probe granted where no direct attribution or recovery justified custodial interrogation

Anticipatory bail was granted in a GST evasion investigation because the material did not directly attribute the alleged clandestine purchases or movement of goods to the applicant. The search yielded no unaccounted stock or raw material, and the Department's request for custody was mainly to record the applicant's statement, which was held insufficient to deny pre-arrest bail. The Court also considered the applicant's serious medical condition, the absence of disputed recovery from the premises, and the limited, compoundable nature of the offence as factors showing that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted in a GST evasion investigation where the applicant was not directly named by sellers, the search did not reveal unaccounted stock or raw material, and the Department mainly sought custody for recording the applicant's statement.

Analysis: The investigation material did not disclose direct attribution of the alleged purchase or clandestine movement of goods to the applicant. The search of the factory premises did not yield unaccounted raw material or finished goods, and the Department's case remained largely inferential on the basis of intercepted trucks and suspected shell firms. The request for custody was substantially grounded on the need to record the applicant's statement, which by itself is not a sufficient reason to deny pre-arrest bail. The Court also noted the applicant's serious medical condition, the absence of any disputed recovery from the premises, and the fact that the offence, though fiscal in nature, was compoundable and punishable up to a limited term. The surrounding circumstances did not justify treating custodial interrogation as necessary.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the applicant.

---