Anticipatory bail in GST fraud allegations granted where custodial interrogation was not necessary.

In GST prosecutions involving alleged wrongful input tax credit and forged invoices, anticipatory bail may be granted where custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary. The Court treated the special GST penal framework, statutory safeguards, the limited sentencing exposure on the alleged facts, and the possibility of prior connected proceedings as relevant in assessing pre-arrest protection. On that basis, pre-arrest bail was considered justified, and the applicant was entitled to release on bail on the stated terms and conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution arising out of alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit and related forged GST transactions, and whether custodial interrogation was necessary.

Analysis: The allegations were examined in the backdrop of the GST framework, including the penal provisions relating to fraudulent issuance and use of invoices, wrongful availment of input tax credit, and the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution. The Court noted that the matter involved a special statutory regime dealing with GST offences and that similar cases had recognised the relevance of the statutory safeguards, the limited sentencing exposure in the facts alleged, and the principles governing pre-arrest bail. The Court also considered the submission that a prior proceeding on connected allegations had already been initiated, and treated the possibility of repeated prosecution and the nature of the accusations as relevant while assessing the need for custodial interrogation.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was warranted and custodial interrogation was held not to be necessary.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to pre-arrest protection and was directed to be released on bail on the stated terms and conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case governed by the GST penal framework, anticipatory bail may be granted where the allegations do not make custodial interrogation necessary and the statutory and factual circumstances do not justify pre-trial incarceration.

---