GST evasion and fake invoice prosecutions: custody-based BNSS provisions do not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.

In prosecutions for grave GST evasion, bail remains discretionary because custody-based provisions under BNSS do not create an indefeasible right to release. Where investigation materials, electronic evidence, and statements prima facie indicate a structured network using fake firms, bogus invoices, and false e-way bills, the alleged conduct may be treated as a serious economic offence warranting a stricter approach. The period already spent in custody, by itself, is insufficient to justify enlargement on bail where the risk of tampering and the interests of justice weigh against release. Bail was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging large-scale GST evasion and fraudulent issuance of fake invoices and e-way bills, and whether the statutory provisions relating to undertrial detention and bail under BNSS warranted release.

Analysis: The allegations involved a structured GST evasion network using fake firms, bogus invoices, false transport entities, and electronic evidence, with material collected during investigation and statements under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prima facie indicating active participation. The Court treated the alleged conduct as a serious economic offence causing substantial loss to the public exchequer and applied the settled principle that economic offences stand on a different footing for bail. It further held that Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the custody-related safeguards in Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 do not confer an absolute right to bail, since release remains subject to judicial discretion, the nature of accusations, the risk of tampering, and the broader interests of justice. The period of custody by itself was held insufficient to justify enlargement on bail in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Bail was declined because the Court found a prima facie case of serious economic offence, viewed the alleged evasion as grave and organized, and held that the statutory custody provisions did not mandate release.

Final Conclusion: The bail application was rejected after the Court balanced personal liberty against the seriousness of the alleged GST evasion, the investigative material, and the need for a stricter approach to economic offences.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions involving grave economic offences under the GST law, statutory custody-based bail provisions do not create an indefeasible right to release, and bail remains a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the nature of the accusations, the evidence, and the risk to the administration of justice.

---