Judicial remand requires independent satisfaction, and GST allegations alone do not bar bail when custody is no longer needed.

Further judicial remand must be supported by an independently recorded judicial satisfaction on the necessity of continued custody; a mechanical extension is unsustainable. In GST prosecutions, bail cannot be refused merely because the allegations involve an economic offence when the investigation is substantially complete, documents and statements are already recorded, and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary. The possibility of witness influence may be addressed through conditions rather than continued detention. On these principles, the remand extension was found not in accordance with law and bail was granted on conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order extending judicial remand was validly passed after the Magistrate applied independent judicial mind and recorded satisfaction as to the necessity of further detention; (ii) whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of the stage of investigation and the nature of the allegations under the GST law.

Issue (i): Whether the order extending judicial remand was validly passed after the Magistrate applied independent judicial mind and recorded satisfaction as to the necessity of further detention.

Analysis: The remand order was tested only to the limited extent permissible while considering bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The governing principle required the Magistrate to apply mind and record satisfaction before authorising further detention. The remand order was found to rest on a mechanical approach, because it proceeded on the premise that only a prima facie case had to be seen and did not reflect an independent assessment of the evidence or of the need for continued custody.

Conclusion: The extension of remand was held not to be in accordance with law and was found unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of the stage of investigation and the nature of the allegations under the GST law.

Analysis: Bail was considered on the settled principle that liberty cannot be curtailed as a form of pre-trial punishment and that economic offence by itself does not justify a blanket refusal of bail. The investigation was treated as substantially complete, with documents seized and statements of the accused and transporters already recorded. Custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary, and the apprehension of influencing witnesses was treated as capable of being addressed through conditions rather than continued incarceration. The gravity of the allegations under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was considered, but it was held that the nature of the offence did not create an absolute bar to bail.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant on conditions.

Final Conclusion: The order resulted in release of the accused on bail after finding that continued custody was no longer required for investigation and that the remand extension was not properly supported by independent judicial satisfaction.

Ratio Decidendi: Further detention must rest on an independently recorded judicial satisfaction about the necessity of custody, and in GST prosecutions bail cannot be denied merely because the allegations disclose an economic offence when investigation is substantially complete and custodial interrogation is not required.

---