Bail under GST prosecution allowed where custody was prolonged, evidence was documentary, and the charge-sheet was already filed.

Bail was granted to an accused prosecuted under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged offences falling within clauses (c), (f) and (h), because the maximum sentence was limited, the charge-sheet had already been filed, custody had continued for about seven months, the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution was documentary in nature, and there were no antecedents. On those factors, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed release on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, facing prosecution for offences under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was entitled to bail.

Analysis: The allegations related to clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence was limited, a charge-sheet had already been filed, the appellant had remained in custody for about seven months, the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution was based on documentary evidence, and there were no antecedents.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellant and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

---