Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Regular bail in GST prosecution granted after custody period, completed investigation, and parity with co-accused.</h1> Regular bail in a GST prosecution was granted where the petitioner had remained in judicial custody since 29.01.2026, the material part of the ... Seeking to enlargement of bail - Offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b)(c), (f) and (I) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. - Parity with co-accused. Regular bail - Completion of investigation - Parity with co-accused - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the petitioner had remained in judicial custody from 29.01.2026, that accused No. 3 had already been granted bail, and that investigation was already completed. On that basis, it held that continued incarceration of the petitioner was not warranted and directed release on regular bail subject to conditions regarding bond, appearance before the respondent authorities, and compliance with the applicable statutory conditions. [Paras 6] The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions. Final Conclusion: The criminal petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted regular bail, the Court having considered the period of custody, completion of investigation, and parity with the co-accused already enlarged on bail. Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in a GST prosecution in view of the period of judicial custody and the stage of investigation.Analysis: The petitioner had remained in judicial custody since 29.01.2026. Bail was sought on the basis that the material part of investigation had been completed and further interrogation was not required. The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that the alleged offence was non-cognizable and non-bailable and that investigation was still pending. The Court took note of the custody period, the completion of investigation, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail, and found it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail subject to conditions.Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.Final Conclusion: The criminal petition succeeded and the petitioner was released on bail with stipulated safeguards.