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 already with the department. Court applied the principle that continued pretrial detention is unnecessary when evidence is documentary, offences are triable by a Magistrate, the accused has undergone substantial custody and further custodial interrogation is not required; noted statutory recovery remedies under GST and the likelihood of a protracted trial. Outcome: regular bail granted subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds as directed by the trial court.

---

---

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.

---