Regular bail for alleged bogus input tax credit fraud granted where documentary evidence reduced tampering risks.

Regular bail in alleged fraudulent input tax credit cases may be justified where the prosecution relies mainly on electronic and documentary material already filed with the complaint, proposed witnesses are government officers, and the risk of tampering or influence is negligible. The notes state that continued custody was not warranted because the alleged offences carried a maximum five-year sentence, the petitioners had spent over seven months in custody, had no criminal antecedents, and the allegations required trial examination. Both petitioners were granted regular bail subject to adequate bail and surety bonds and stipulated safeguards.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail in prosecution for alleged fraudulent availment and passing of input tax credit through purportedly bogus firms.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested predominantly on electronic and documentary material already appended to the complaint. The proposed witnesses were government officers, making the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence negligible. The alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years; the petitioners had remained in custody for over seven months, had no criminal antecedents, and the allegations required examination at trial. Their continued custody was therefore not warranted, subject to safeguards securing their presence and protecting the investigation and trial.

Outcome: Both petitioners were granted regular bail on adequate bail and surety bonds subject to stipulated conditions.

---