Bail in GST prosecution granted where investigation was complete, custody was prolonged, and no flight or tampering risk was shown.

Bail was granted to an accused under Section 132 of the CGST Act because the case rested mainly on documentary material, investigation was complete, and the complaint had already been filed. The court noted the absence of criminal antecedents, the lack of any shown flight risk, witness intimidation, or tampering risk, and the substantial period already spent in custody. With the maximum punishment capped at five years and the matter triable by a Magistrate, personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the principle that bail is the norm and jail the exception favoured release.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to an accused of offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in the absence of antecedents, flight risk, tampering risk, or other circumstances justifying continued custody.

Analysis: The allegations related to GST input tax credit misuse and were supported primarily by documentary material. Investigation stood completed and the complaint had been filed. The maximum prescribed punishment was five years and the case was triable by a Magistrate. The applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period, had no criminal history, and no material was shown to suggest that release on bail would prejudice a fair trial, intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, or result in abscondence. The constitutional principle of personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the settled rule that bail is the norm and jail the exception weighed in favour of release.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.

---