Parity in bail entitlement: petitioner granted regular bail on same terms as co-accused due to equal position and prolonged custody.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under offences under the CGST statute was decided on parity with a co-accused: the Court applied the parity principle in bail by treating identical procedural position and comparable role as sufficient to justify identical bail terms, noted the State's concession of parity, the absence of other criminal antecedents, prolonged pre-trial custody and likely trial duration; the Court did not evaluate merits of allegations and ordered release on regular bail on the same terms as the co-accused subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds within seven days, failing which custody beyond that week will not be condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the criminal complaint under Section 132(1)(b),(c),(f) and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on the basis of parity with a co-accused who has already been granted regular bail.

Analysis: The petition challenges the order denying bail by the trial court and relies on parity with co-accused Sanket Mittal who was granted regular bail by this Court. The petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2025 and has remained in custody for approximately ten months. The State accepts that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused for the purposes of bail. The Court refrains from examining the merits of the allegations, noting that such issues are for trial and appreciation of evidence. Considering the parity with the co-accused, absence of other criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the likely duration of trial, the petitioner's entitlement to bail on similar terms as the co-accused was found to be made out.

Conclusion: The petition is allowed and the petitioner is to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate within seven days; failure to furnish bonds within seven days will result in the further custody period after one week not being counted in this case.

---