Regular bail in GST prosecution granted where investigation was complete and continued custody was found unnecessary on documentary evidence.

In a GST prosecution based largely on documentary evidence, regular bail was warranted once investigation was complete and the challan had been filed, because the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses was materially reduced. The court balanced the seriousness of the economic offence against personal liberty and held that prolonged pre-trial custody could not be continued where the prosecution could not show a real risk of absconding or interference with trial. The absence of prior adjudication under section 74 was not a standalone ground for bail, but it was relevant on the facts, particularly given the limited punishment and the delay in leading pre-charge evidence. Bail was granted on conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, having regard to completion of investigation, filing of challan, the largely documentary nature of evidence, the period of custody, and the need for prior adjudication under section 74.

Analysis: Bail in economic offences is governed by the settled parameters of prima facie involvement, gravity of accusation, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the overall need to secure the presence of the accused at trial. Where investigation is complete and the prosecution case rests substantially on documents already in the custody of the agency, the apprehension of interference with evidence is materially reduced. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration must also be balanced against the constitutional value of personal liberty. The absence of show-cause adjudication under section 74 was not treated as a standalone basis for bail, but it assumed significance in the facts of the case, especially where no pre-charge evidence had been led for a substantial period and the maximum punishment was limited.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to regular bail.

Final Conclusion: The custodial detention was held unnecessary in the facts and circumstances, and bail was granted on conditions to secure attendance and preserve the integrity of the records.

Ratio Decidendi: In an economic offence based predominantly on documentary evidence, once investigation is complete and the prosecution cannot show a real risk of absconding, tampering, or witness influence, prolonged pre-trial custody should not be continued merely on the seriousness of the allegation.

---