2026 (1) TMI 702 - HC - GST

Bail granted by CMM in documentary/electronic evidence case upheld after finding no tampering or flight risk; cancellation dismissed

Dominant issue: whether bail granted by the CMM should be cancelled. The HC applied factors governing grant/cancellation of bail (nature and gravity of ... Seeking cancellation of Bail granted - clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka with alleged GST evasion - offence under Section 132 CGST - Incriminating documents and diary, seized - CMM failed to appreciate the gravity and societal impact of the offence - illegal activity, including ownership of the brand and laundering of proceeds - tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses - HELD THAT:- In recent judgement of Ashok Dhankad vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another [2025 (8) TMI 1709 - SUPREME COURT], Apex Court reiterated that while considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on Bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on Bail. It cannot be overlooked that the evidence is essentially documentary/electronic and there is no likelihood of the same being tampered by the Respondent after having been admitted to Bail. There is nothing to show that he is a flight Risk or there is any likelihood of his influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence. There is no ground which is existing to show that the discretion of grant of Bail has not been exercised judiciously by the learned CMM or that there is any misuse or abuse of liberty so granted by the Respondent. There is also nothing on record to show that the trial has been hampered on account of grant of Bail. Thus, there is no merit in the present Petition for setting aside of the Bail Order dated 17.03.2021. Issues: Whether the bail order dated 17.03.2021 granted to the accused (Vishal Goyal) should be recalled on the ground that the learned CMM erred in exercising judicial discretion in light of alleged large-scale duty evasion, the seriousness of the offence and apprehension of tampering with evidence.Analysis: The issue requires examination of whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse or founded on irrelevant considerations rather than adjudication of the trial merits. Relevant considerations include the nature and gravity of accusations, role attributed to the accused, stage of investigation, the character of material collected (documentary/electronic), and whether there are grounds to believe the accused is a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence. The impugned order recorded the alleged duty-evasion figure and found the computation to be based on assumptions; it noted that the evidence is primarily documentary/electronic, that there is no indication of likelihood of tampering or of the accused being a flight risk, and that no misuse of bail liberty was shown. The distinction between recalling an earlier bail order (on grounds of illegality or perversity in the original exercise of discretion) and cancelling bail for supervening misconduct or breach of conditions was applied.Conclusion: The petition to recall the bail order is dismissed and the bail granted on 17.03.2021 is upheld in favour of the assessee.