Bail in GST prosecution granted where custody was prolonged, investigation complete, and no risk of tampering or absconding.

Bail was considered under GST prosecutions on settled principles of personal liberty, presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial. Continued custody of more than five months, completion of investigation, no further recovery requirement, cooperation with the investigating agency, absence of criminal antecedents, and no credible risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses weighed in favour of release. The court treated these factors as sufficient to justify bail even though the matter involved an alleged economic offence, reflecting the principle that prolonged detention should not continue where it no longer serves the ends of justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, facing prosecution under the GST enactments, was entitled to bail in view of the period of custody, completion of investigation, cooperation with the authorities, absence of criminal antecedents, and the right to speedy trial.

Analysis: The petition was considered on settled bail principles, including the presumption of innocence, the general rule that bail is preferred to incarceration, and the constitutional protection of personal liberty and speedy trial. The material showed that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than five months, the investigation was complete, and nothing further was required to be recovered. The Court also noted the petitioner's appearance before the investigating agency, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the absence of material indicating any likelihood of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or non-cooperation at trial. In the context of the alleged economic offence, these factors weighed in favour of release on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail should ordinarily be granted where custody has become prolonged, investigation is complete, there is no credible risk of absconding or tampering, and continued detention would not serve the ends of justice, even in prosecutions involving alleged economic offences.

---