Bail in GST prosecution granted where arrest circumstances, no ascertained tax demand and low custody risk favoured release

Bail under Section 439 CrPC was granted in a prosecution for alleged offences under the CGST Act, as the Court found the custody not justified on the facts presented. The Court noted the applicant had remained on interim bail, had appeared before the trial court, and that the alleged offences carried punishment up to five years. It also considered that no tax or penalty had been ascertained, no recovery notice had been issued, and the relevant arrest circumstances did not warrant continued detention. Applying settled bail factors, including the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, role of the accused and risk of tampering with evidence, the applicant was released on conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in respect of the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case involving offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order records that the applicant had been on interim bail, had appeared before the trial court, and that the allegations, though serious, carried punishment up to five years. The Court also noted the absence of ascertained tax or penalty, the absence of a recovery notice, and the circumstances surrounding arrest. Applying the settled principles governing bail, including the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, role of the accused and the risk of tampering with evidence, the Court found the case fit for bail.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was ordered to be released on bail, with liberty preserved to the trial court to enforce conditions and proceed in accordance with law in case of breach.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be granted where the circumstances of arrest, the nature of the alleged offence, the stage of the proceedings and the risk factors do not justify continued custody, even in prosecutions under the GST law.

---