2026 (3) TMI 403 - HC - GST

Pretrial custody and documentary evidence: regular bail granted where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and recovery remedies exist.

Petition concerns entitlement to regular bail in alleged fraudulent availment of GST input tax credit where allegations rest mainly on documentary records ... Entitlement to regular bail - fraudulent availment of input tax credit - Offence under Section 132(1) (b) and 132(1) (c) and 132(5) of the Central GST Act, 2017 read with Section 20(xv) of the Integrated GST Act, 2017. Regular bail - Grant of regular bail to the petitioner accused of offences under the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Court found that the allegations relate primarily to documentary evidence which is already in the possession of the department and that further custodial interrogation would not serve any meaningful purpose. The petitioner has been in custody since 03.11.2025 and the trial is likely to be protracted due to voluminous documentary material. The offences are triable by the Magistrate and involve sentences of limited duration; precedents were noted where bail was granted in similar circumstances and the Court emphasised that personal liberty cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. The Court therefore exercised discretion to release the petitioner on regular bail while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits, and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously and independently on the basis of the evidence on record. [Paras 7, 8, 9] Petitioner granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Magistrate Final Conclusion: The petition is disposed of by directing release of the petitioner on regular bail subject to furnishing bonds; the trial court is to decide the matter on merits expeditiously and independently, and the Court has expressed no opinion on the substantive facts. Issues: Whether the petitioner, accused of fraudulent availment of input tax credit under provisions of the GST law, is entitled to regular bail having regard to the nature of allegations, documentary evidence, period of custody and prospects of further custodial interrogation.Analysis: The Court examined that the allegations relate primarily to documentary evidence already in possession of the department, the petitioner has been in custody since 03.11.2025, and the trial is likely to be protracted given voluminous records. The Court noted precedents recognising that where offences are triable by a Magistrate, the evidence is documentary, and the accused has undergone substantial custody, continued detention may not serve a meaningful purpose. The Court further observed statutory remedies for recovery under the GST assessment provisions and that criminal proceedings need not automatically justify prolonged pretrial detention absent necessity for custodial interrogation.Conclusion: Grant of regular bail to the petitioner; petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, if not required in any other case.