GST prosecution bail turns on documentary evidence, custody length, and absence of tampering or absconding risk.

Bail in a GST prosecution may be granted where the case is largely documentary, relevant records are secured, custody has already continued for several months, and there is no material showing risk of tampering with evidence, absconding, or non-cooperation. The note emphasises that bail remains the rule, pre-trial incarceration should not be prolonged without necessity, and the seriousness of the alleged offence by itself does not justify continued detention. It also highlights constitutional personal liberty and the need for speedy trial as relevant considerations in assessing whether arrest and further custody are justified. On these facts, the petitioner was treated as entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a GST prosecution involving alleged illegal availing of input tax credit, having regard to the nature of the evidence, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, and the absence of material showing likelihood of tampering with evidence or non-cooperation.

Analysis: The petition arose from allegations under the GST law that invoices were issued and used without actual supply of goods and that wrongful input tax credit had been claimed. The Court noted that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than three and a half months, the prosecution case was substantially documentary in nature, and the investigation had already secured the relevant records. The Court also took into account the settled principles that bail is the rule, that pre-trial incarceration should not be prolonged without necessity, and that seriousness of the offence alone does not justify denial of bail where there is no shown risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or non-participation in trial. Reliance was placed on the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the need for a speedy trial, along with the requirement that arrest and continued custody must be justified by material circumstances.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail, and the bail petition was allowed.

---