Anticipatory bail in fake input tax credit fraud denied where custodial interrogation and distinct conspiracy role made parity unavailable.

Anticipatory bail was considered in a case alleging a coordinated bogus-firm and fake input tax credit fraud involving forged documents, invoices and e-way bills. The court treated the allegations as a serious economic offence with prima facie involvement in forgery and cheating, not a mere tax dispute, and found custodial interrogation necessary to trace financial channels, electronic evidence and the wider conspiracy. A co-accused's regular bail did not create parity because the applicant's alleged role was distinct and more serious. On that basis, pre-arrest protection was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case alleging a large-scale bogus-firm and fake input tax credit fraud involving forgery-related offences. (ii) Whether the applicant could claim parity with a co-accused granted regular bail. (iii) Whether custodial interrogation was necessary at the pre-arrest stage.

Issue (i): Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case alleging a large-scale bogus-firm and fake input tax credit fraud involving forgery-related offences.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a coordinated conspiracy to create non-existent firms, upload fabricated documents, generate invoices and e-way bills without movement of goods, and fraudulently avail and pass on input tax credit. The material collected during investigation, including recoveries and statements, indicated prima facie involvement in a serious economic offence affecting the public exchequer. The offence was treated as one involving forgery and cheating, not as a mere tax dispute.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted on the facts and was declined.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant could claim parity with a co-accused granted regular bail.

Analysis: Parity in bail depends on similarity of role and circumstances. A co-accused released on regular bail does not automatically entitle an applicant to anticipatory bail, particularly when the investigation indicates a distinct role and the applicant is alleged to be a mastermind or active participant in the conspiracy.

Conclusion: The plea of parity was rejected and no relief was granted on that basis.

Issue (iii): Whether custodial interrogation was necessary at the pre-arrest stage.

Analysis: The investigation was at a nascent stage and required tracing financial channels, mobile devices, electronic evidence, and the wider conspiracy involving numerous fictitious firms and multiple accounts. The Court treated custodial interrogation as essential to unearth the truth, prevent tampering with evidence, and identify other involved persons. The balance of personal liberty was held to yield to the larger public interest in a serious economic offence.

Conclusion: Custodial interrogation was held necessary, and anticipatory bail was refused.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because the alleged conduct disclosed a serious economic and forgery-based conspiracy, the applicant's role appeared prima facie established, and pre-arrest protection was found likely to impede fair investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence involving prima facie participation in a forgery and ITC fraud conspiracy, anticipatory bail may be refused where custodial interrogation is necessary and parity cannot be claimed without a comparable role and circumstances.

---