Regular bail under GST law granted where prolonged custody was unjustified and trial safeguards could secure attendance.

Regular bail under the GST law was granted because continued custody was not shown to be necessary pending trial. The Court weighed the period of detention, the maximum sentence, the largely official nature of the prosecution witnesses, and the principle that an under-trial should not remain in custody indefinitely. Applying the balance between personal liberty and the interests of justice, it found no sufficient basis to keep the petitioner detained and ordered release on bail and surety conditions to secure attendance and protect the trial process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the GST law.

Analysis: The petition was for regular bail under the criminal procedure law in relation to alleged offences under the GST enactments. The allegations were serious, but the criminal liability was still to be determined at trial. The Court considered the period of custody, the maximum sentence, the fact that the prosecution case rested mainly on official witnesses, and the principle that an under-trial cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period. Applying the settled approach that bail is governed by a balance between personal liberty and the interests of justice, the Court found no sufficient basis to continue detention.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail and was ordered to be released on appropriate bail and surety bonds.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding resulted in release of the petitioner on bail, with conditions imposed to secure attendance and safeguard the trial process.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters, custody pending trial must be justified by necessity, and where trial is pending, custody is prolonged, and witness interference is unlikely, personal liberty may outweigh the seriousness of the accusation.

---