Tax Credit Fraud Accused Receives Bail After Prolonged Detention, Personal Bond Ensures Temporary Release Under Section 483

HC granted bail to an accused in a tax credit fraud case under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Despite prosecution allegations of involvement in operating fake firms and availing inadmissible input tax credit, the court considered the applicant's prolonged detention and granted bail with personal bond and surety, without commenting on case merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail.
2. Allegations of involvement in availing inadmissible input tax credit under CGST Act, 2017.
3. Claim of false implication and innocence by the applicant.
4. Comparison with a similarly situated accused who was granted bail.
5. Consideration of evidence and confession by the applicant.
6. Decision on granting regular bail to the applicant.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the applicant who was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 132 (1) (c) and 132 (1) (i) (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, related to availing inadmissible input tax credit.

2. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with others, was involved in a scheme of operating fake firms to pass on bogus ITC to various traders. The investigation revealed a significant amount of fake ITC availed, leading to the arrest of the applicant. The prosecution contended that the applicant had abetted the commission of the offense in violation of Section 16 of the CGST Act.

3. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. It was claimed that the prosecution's case lacked merit and that the applicant, engaged in the trading of scrap materials with a valid GST registration, had no involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. Reference was made to a similarly situated accused, Hemant Kasera, who had been granted bail in a similar offense.

4. The respondent opposed the bail application, emphasizing the active involvement of the applicant in availing inadmissible ITC and the confession made by the applicant during the investigation. Despite the grant of bail to another accused, the respondent argued that the applicant had confessed to engaging in illegal activities to defraud the state exchequer.

5. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties, reviewed the case diary, and acknowledged the grant of bail to a similarly situated accused. After evaluating the circumstances, including the applicant's prolonged detention since April 2024 and the expected trial duration, the court decided to grant regular bail to the applicant without commenting on the case's merits.

6. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application filed by the applicant, Sandeep Bansal, upon furnishing a personal bond and a solvent surety. The bail order would remain in force until the case's disposal, providing relief to the applicant from continued incarceration pending trial.

---