Anticipatory bail refused in bogus e-way bill allegations where prima facie material showed no actual goods movement.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was declined where preliminary material indicated bogus e-way bills were generated without actual movement or delivery of goods. Vehicle owners and drivers denied transporting any goods, and the Court treated the record as prima facie showing no real transaction matching the e-way bills. On that basis, the Court found no ground to exercise discretionary pre-arrest bail relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the alleged bogus e-way bills and the material collected in preliminary investigation.

Analysis: The application for anticipatory bail was considered against the background of allegations that bogus e-way bills were generated without actual movement or delivery of goods and that vehicle owners and drivers denied any such transport from Gandhidham to the relevant destinations. The material before the Court indicated, prima facie, that there was no actual transaction corresponding to the e-way bills and that the applicants were involved in the business operations connected with the alleged offence. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to exercise the discretionary power of pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail and the request for relief was rejected.

---