Bail under GST prosecution upheld where complaint filing changed circumstances and no flight risk or witness interference was shown.

In a prosecution under the CGST Act, the High Court held that filing of the complaint after earlier bail rejections constituted a substantial change in circumstances for reconsidering bail. Once the complaint was filed, the relevant factors became the gravity of the alleged offence and the triple test of flight risk, likelihood of influencing witnesses, and tampering with evidence. As the material was largely documentary, and there was no showing that the respondent was a flight risk, would interfere with the process, or had misused bail, the order granting bail was upheld and recall was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the respondent in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 warranted recall or cancellation on the ground that it was granted without any change in circumstances and was otherwise improperly exercised.

Analysis: The petition invoked the supervisory jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assail the bail order. The challenge rested on the alleged absence of any material change after earlier rejections, non-cooperation in investigation, and alleged absence of parity. The Court noted that filing of the complaint after the earlier rejection constituted a substantial change in circumstances. It further held that, after filing of the complaint, the relevant considerations shift to the gravity of the offence and the triple test of flight risk, likelihood of influencing witnesses, and tampering with evidence. The evidence was essentially documentary, there was no material to show that the respondent was a flight risk or likely to interfere with the process, and there was no material showing misuse of the liberty granted on bail.

Conclusion: The bail order was upheld and the prayer for recall of the bail order was rejected.

---