Regular bail in CGST prosecution granted where continued custody was found unnecessary pending trial.

Regular bail was granted in a CGST Act complaint because continued pre-trial custody was not shown to be necessary. The Court noted that the petitioner had remained in custody since 07.01.2023, the alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years, and the prosecution case depended on official witnesses while criminal liability was still to be determined at trial. Applying settled bail principles, the Court relied on the presumption of innocence and personal liberty to hold that mere allegations did not justify further incarceration. The petitioner was therefore ordered to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds, subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Entitlement of the petitioner to regular bail in a complaint alleging offences under the CGST Act.

Analysis: The petitioner was in custody since 07.01.2023 and the alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years. The prosecution case rested on official witnesses, and the criminal liability was yet to be determined at trial. Applying settled bail principles that custody pending trial must be justified by necessity, and keeping in view the presumption of innocence and the value of personal liberty, the Court found no sufficient reason to keep the petitioner in continued pre-trial incarceration.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail and was ordered to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail matter, continued custody pending trial is not justified merely by the allegations when the case can be tried on evidence from official witnesses, the punishment is limited, and no compelling necessity for detention is shown.

---