https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784447 Anticipatory bail was sought for alleged creation of bogus firms and facilitation of fake e-way bills punishable under ss. 67 and 132 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. The HC held that the allegations were founded mainly on documentary and digital material already seized by the investigating agency pursuant to a search under s. 67, with no pending recovery shown from the applicant. Given that the maximum sentence under s. 132 is five years, the offence was not treated as of such heinous nature as to justify custodial detention, and custodial interrogation was not shown to be indispensable; the risk of absconding or tampering was also minimal since the data was in custody. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784447 Anticipatory bail was sought for alleged creation of bogus firms and facilitation of fake e-way bills punishable under ss. 67 and 132 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. The HC held that the allegations were founded mainly on documentary and digital material already seized by the investigating agency pursuant to a search under s. 67, with no pending recovery shown from the applicant. Given that the maximum sentence under s. 132 is five years, the offence was not treated as of such heinous nature as to justify custodial detention, and custodial interrogation was not shown to be indispensable; the risk of absconding or tampering was also minimal since the data was in custody. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions. Case-Laws GST Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784447