Bail in fake invoicing case granted where custodial interrogation was unnecessary and the accused was not shown to be a flight risk.

Bail was granted in a prosecution alleging wrongful availment and utilisation of ineligible input tax credit on the basis of invoices without actual supply of goods. The Court considered that the accused had been in custody since 13.10.2023, that the amount alleged above the stated bailable threshold was limited, and that custodial interrogation was not sought. It also noted that the accused was not shown to be a habitual offender or flight risk, that the alleged suppliers were reflected as active on the GST portal, and that no notice under Section 41A CrPC had been issued. Bail was therefore granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution alleging wrongful availment and utilisation of ineligible input tax credit, in view of the amount involved, the alleged absence of custodial need, and the contention that the safeguards relating to arrest were not followed.

Analysis: The allegation was that the accused had availed ineligible input tax credit on the strength of invoices without actual supply of goods. The Court noted that the accused was in custody from 13.10.2023, that the amount beyond the stated bailable threshold was relatively limited, and that the persons said to have supplied goods were shown as active on the GST portal though their involvement had not been verified by the department. The Court further observed that custodial interrogation was not sought, that the accused was not shown to be a habitual offender or a flight risk, and that no notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been issued.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the accused, subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged tax evasion above the stated threshold is limited, custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary, and the accused is not a flight risk or habitual offender, bail may be granted despite allegations of fake invoicing and wrongful input tax credit.

---