Bail in CGST prosecution granted where custody was prolonged, investigation was complete, and no risk of absconding was shown.

Bail was granted in a prosecution under the CGST Act because the applicant had been in custody since 15.03.2026, investigation was complete, and the complaint had already been filed. The Court noted that the alleged offence carried a maximum punishment of five years, was triable by a Magistrate, and the record showed no criminal antecedents or material suggesting absconding, tampering with evidence, witness intimidation, or obstruction of trial. Applying the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court treated pre-trial detention as non-punitive, especially where the case was largely documentary and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The applicant was in custody since 15.03.2026, the investigation had been completed and the complaint had been filed. The alleged offence carried a maximum punishment of five years and was triable by a Magistrate. The record did not disclose criminal antecedents, and no material was shown to indicate likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or obstructing the trial. The Court applied the settled principles that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that pre-trial detention is not punitive, particularly where the prosecution case is substantially documentary and the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.

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

---