Bail in GST investigation remains undisturbed where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and the case rests on documentary evidence.

Interference with bail was unwarranted in a GST investigation where custodial interrogation was not sought, the material was largely documentary, and the allegations could be examined from GST records, bank material and seized documents. The respondent's prior resignation from the accused companies, permanent residence, absence of past tax offending, lack of any criminal complaint despite delay, and no allegation of misuse of bail all supported continuance of bail. The High Court therefore declined to disturb the bail order and the respondent's bail remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the respondent in a GST investigation called for interference.

Analysis: The respondent had been in judicial custody for a short period, and the investigating agency had not sought custodial interrogation. The allegations concerned fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund, but the material was record-based and capable of being examined from GST Department records, bank material, and other seized documents. The respondent's resignation from the accused companies was also noted to be prior to the commencement of the Goods and Services Tax regime. The respondent was a permanent resident, no previous involvement or habitual tax offending was shown, no criminal complaint had been filed despite the lapse of time, and there was no allegation of misuse of bail.

Conclusion: The bail order did not warrant interference and the challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed, and the respondent's bail remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a bail order is unwarranted where custodial interrogation is not required, the accused is not shown to be a flight risk or habitual offender, and the investigation can proceed on documentary material.

---