Anticipatory bail refused in alleged fake billing and GST evasion case where custodial interrogation was found necessary.

Anticipatory bail was refused where the allegations showed that the petitioner and a co-accused created a non-functional firm from rented premises with no real business activity and used it to issue fake bills and generate fictitious transactions for GST evasion. The Court treated the alleged scheme as serious economic wrongdoing causing substantial loss to the public exchequer and held that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the modus operandi. On that basis, pre-arrest protection was found unjustified and the bail application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging creation of a non-functional firm, issuance of fake bills and GST evasion causing substantial loss to the public exchequer.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed that the petitioner, along with a co-accused, had created a firm in rented premises without any real business activity and had used it for generating fake bills and fictitious transactions. The investigation indicated that this arrangement was used to evade GST and cause loss to the public exchequer of more than Rs. 7 crores. In view of the nature and gravity of the and the need for custodial interrogation to unearth the modus operandi, the request for pre-arrest protection was not considered justified.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be refused where the allegations disclose a deliberately created fake business entity used for fraudulent billing and tax evasion, and custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate the offence.

---