Anticipatory bail in alleged SGST evasion denied where custodial interrogation was needed and the applicant had not cooperated with investigation.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was declined where allegations of substantial SGST evasion, multiple connected entities, and the need to trace the money trail made custodial interrogation relevant. The court considered the gravity of the accusation, the applicant's attributed role, the risk of absconding, and possible non-cooperation, and found that repeated attempts to trace the applicant and his failure to join investigation after seeking exemption weighed against protection. On those facts, anticipatory bail was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged large-scale tax evasion under the SGST law, where the prosecution asserted the need for custodial interrogation and the applicant's conduct suggested avoidance of investigation.

Analysis: The request for anticipatory bail was assessed against the settled parameters governing Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role attributed to the applicant, the possibility of absconding, the likelihood of non-cooperation, and the need to preserve free and fair investigation. The record showed repeated attempts by the investigating agency to trace the applicant, repeated farari panchnamas, and material indicating that the applicant had not joined the investigation after the initial request for exemption. The allegations involved substantial tax evasion, multiple linked entities, and tracing of the money trail, making custodial interrogation relevant and not unreasonable on the facts presented.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the application was rejected.

---