Regular bail in a CGST prosecution granted where documentary links were unverified and trial delay made custody unjustified.

Regular bail was granted in a CGST prosecution because the alleged links with connected firms were not supported by verified bank records or other independent documentary evidence, and the custodial statement's evidentiary value could only be tested at trial. The Court also considered that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, carried a maximum sentence of five years, charge had not yet been framed, no prosecution witness had been examined, and the trial was likely to take considerable time. On these facts, continued incarceration was found unjustified pending trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail pending trial in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested substantially on documentary material and the statement recorded during custodial interrogation. The Court noted that the alleged links between the applicant and the wider set of firms were not supported by verified bank records or other independent documentary evidence, and the truth or evidentiary value of the custodial statement would have to be tested at trial. It further noticed that the alleged offence was triable by a Magistrate, carried a maximum sentence of five years, the charge had not yet been framed, no prosecution witness had been examined, and the trial was likely to take considerable time. In these circumstances, continued incarceration was found unjustified.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the applicant pending trial.

---