2025 (7) TMI 1448 - HC - GST

Anticipatory Bail Granted in Fake Firms and Fraudulent GST Bills Case Under CGST Act and IPC Sections

Raaj Jaiswal Versus Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, East Singhbhum

The HC granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner involved in creating fake firms and issuing fraudulent GST bills under CGST Act and various IPC ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - petitioner and others engaged in creation of fake firms in the name of his employees with intention to issue fake GST bills - offences under Section(s) 132(1)(i) of CGST Act and under Section(s) 34, 120B, 174, 175, 201, 203, 204, 205, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any custodial investigation now and there is no scope of tampering the evidence. Thus, no useful purpose will be served in rejecting this anticipatory bail application. Thus, it is inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the court below is directed to enlarge him on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed. The Jharkhand High Court, in an anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considered allegations under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act and multiple IPC provisions including Sections 34, 120B, 174, 175, 201, 203, 204, 205, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471. The petitioner was accused of creating fake firms to issue fraudulent GST bills, thereby committing fraud and causing loss to the State. The Court noted that despite the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner was neither taken into custody nor was any arrest warrant sought during the investigation, which has since been completed with a prosecution report filed and cognizance taken. The prosecution (DGGI) confirmed there was no evidence suggesting the petitioner could tamper with evidence. The petitioner undertook to cooperate and highlighted that all evidence was documentary and in the prosecution's possession; furthermore, a co-accused had been granted regular bail by a coordinate bench. The Court held that 'there cannot be any custodial investigation now and there is no scope of tampering the evidence.' Consequently, rejecting the anticipatory bail application would serve no useful purpose. The Court allowed anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and granting bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties meeting specified conditions related to relationship and property ownership. The petitioner must also appear as directed by the trial court. The Court emphasized the expectation that the charge be framed at the earliest without unnecessary adjournments.