Bail in CGST fake invoicing prosecution granted where investigation was complete and continued custody was unjustified.

Bail was granted in a CGST prosecution for alleged fake invoicing and fraudulent input tax credit claims because the investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, and the case rested mainly on documentary, digital and bank evidence. The alleged offence carried a maximum sentence of five years and was triable by a Magistrate. The applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period, had no shown criminal antecedents, and no exceptional reason justified further detention. Personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception supported release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, facing prosecution under the CGST Act for alleged fake invoicing and fraudulent availment of input tax credit, was entitled to bail pending trial.

Analysis: The prosecution was founded substantially on documentary, digital and bank-record evidence. Investigation was stated to be complete and the complaint had already been filed. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence was five years, the case was triable by a Magistrate, the applicant had remained in custody for a considerable period, no criminal antecedents were shown, and no exceptional circumstance was demonstrated to justify continued detention. The constitutional protection of personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception supported release on bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail and the application was allowed.

---