TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further submits that the aforesaid 18 Firms during investigation were found to be non-existent, as a result of the same, the applicant, who is a businessman, has also been implicated. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the aforesaid 18 Firms are the principal persons, who have been found to be non-existent. Against the applicant, the allegation is that goods have been supplied and the ITC has been availed. The offence is compoundable in nature and maximum punishment provided is 5 years and triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 18.03.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 3. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Mahdoom Bava v s. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 218, Vineet Jain vs. Union of India passed in Criminal Appeal No.2269 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025, Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10319 of 2022 as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of the opposite party that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion. 11. No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. 12. No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if enlarged on bail. 13. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention (pending trial) is not supposed to be punitive. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. 14. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that accused cannot be in jail during trial as a punitive measure for his conduct. In this respect paragraph 21, 22 and 23 of Sanjay Chandra (Supra) is quoted herein below:- "21. In bail applications, gen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India) by order dated 12.1.2026, Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the accused under Section 132(i) of GST Act, 2017 and Section 20(xv) of IGST Act, 2017 (who was under detention for eight months) has observed as under:- "4. We do not undermine the gravity of the alleged offence. However, at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past 8 months. The Trial Court is yet to commence. Charge is yet to be framed. Even if the trial commences in near future, it would not conclude within next one year. The offences are triable by Magistrate. The maximum punishment that the trial court may be in a position to impose upon the petitioner if held guilty would be upto 5 years." 17. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No 2269 of 2025 (Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India) (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No 4349 of 2025) decided on 28.4.2025 while grating bail to accused Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has observed as under:- "The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rut. It has not been shown by opposite party that charge has been framed against applicant. Even if the trial commences in near future, it would not conclude within next one year. Applicant has no previous criminal history. 20. In Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660, Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the principle that "Bail is a Rule and jail is exception" "52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 222] further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should....