Bail in GST evasion case granted where evidence was already with the department and no trial interference risk was shown.

Economic offences under the CGST regime do not create an absolute bar to bail; the court must assess the allegations, stage of proceedings, prescribed punishment, control of the relevant materials, and any risk to the trial. In a prosecution alleging clandestine supply of TMT bars and large-scale GST evasion, the court noted that the documentary material was already with the department, the trial had not begun, and there was no shown likelihood of the applicant influencing the proceedings. On that basis, and without any conclusive determination of complicity on evidence, bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging clandestine supply of TMT bars and large-scale GST evasion under the CGST regime.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the settled approach that economic offences require a cautious evaluation, but do not create an absolute bar to bail. The nature of the allegations, the stage of trial, the maximum prescribed punishment, the fact that the materials relied upon were already in the department's control, and the absence of any demonstrated likelihood of the applicant adversely affecting the trial were all relevant. The Court also noted that the matter had not reached trial and that the applicant's complicity was yet to be determined on evidence.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.

---