Bail in GST fraud cases turns on case-specific factors, with pre-trial detention unjustified when evidence is secured and trial has not begun.

Bail in CGST prosecution alleging fraudulent input tax credit through non-existent suppliers and invoices without supply of goods was held to depend on a case-specific assessment of the gravity of the accusation, the maximum sentence of five years, the stage of trial, and the need to secure the accused's attendance. The HC noted that trial had not commenced, the relevant material was already in departmental custody, and no prejudice to the proceedings from release was shown. On those facts, continued pre-trial detention was not justified and the applicant was entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, accused of offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was entitled to bail having regard to the nature of the allegations, the stage of the trial, the punishment prescribed, and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The allegations concerned fraudulent availment of input tax credit through non-existent suppliers and invoices without supply of goods. Bail in economic offences is not to be denied as a rule merely because of the gravity of the accusation; the decision must turn on the facts of each case, the period of sentence, and the need to secure the accused's presence at trial. The trial had not commenced, the relevant material was already in the department's control, and there was nothing to show that release on bail would prejudice the proceedings. The offence carried a maximum sentence of five years, and the applicant had remained in custody since 1.5.2024.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In economic offence cases under fiscal statutes, bail is to be decided on a case-specific assessment of gravity, sentence, stage of trial, and the need to secure attendance, and pre-trial detention is not justified where the material is already secured and no prejudice to the trial is shown.

---