Serious economic offence and witness-tampering risk justified refusal of regular bail in an alleged tax-evasion conspiracy.

Regular bail was refused in an alleged tax-evasion conspiracy involving forged purchase invoices, fabricated seals and false transport documents. The Court relied on prima facie material from the investigation, witness and driver statements, the applicant's alleged principal role despite not being named in the FIR, past similar antecedents, and the prosecution's apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. It also noted that reliance on the GST framework was misplaced because the FIR was registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, not under the GST regime. The decision reflects that, in serious economic offences, bail may be denied where investigation discloses a prima facie role and there is a credible risk to the integrity of the probe.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a case alleging tax evasion through forged and fabricated documents, considering the applicant's role, antecedents, and the prosecution's apprehension of tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Analysis: The application was considered on the basis of the material collected during investigation and not on a detailed appraisal of the merits. The record indicated a criminal conspiracy to evade tax by using false purchase invoices, fabricated seals, and false transport documents, with the applicant shown as a principal participant though not named in the FIR. The Court noted the statements of witnesses and drivers, the alleged large-scale loss to the revenue, the applicant's past similar antecedents, and the prosecution's apprehension that release on bail could lead to tampering with evidence and witnesses. The reliance placed on the Goods and Services Tax framework was found misplaced because the FIR was registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not under the GST regime.

Conclusion: Regular bail was not granted.

Final Conclusion: The applicant remained in custody as the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the prima facie material, and the risk to the investigation outweighed the claim for liberty at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters involving serious economic offences, the Court may refuse bail where the investigation discloses a prima facie role in a conspiracy, the accused has similar antecedents, and there is a credible apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

---