TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the questionable transaction is more than a years back. It is submitted that investigation has been completed and complaint has been filed. It is further submitted that applicant has passed on the aforesaid input tax credit to another firms. In the present case, the evidence collected against the applicant are all documentary evidence and therefore no further detention of the petitioner in jail is required. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.2.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-D.G.G.I. has opposed the bail application submits that applicant firm has availed wrongful input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 25.3 crores and the same reached to 31.7 crores. It is further submitted that although the firm of the applicant was not a fake firm, however, they have availed input tax credit from the firms which are non-existent. 4. It is not in dispute that till date proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of C.G.S.T. Act has not been initiated. The said proceedings are in the nature of assessment proceedings in respect of al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to impose upon the petitioner if held guilty would be upto 5 years." 11. 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 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 recognise the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"." 15. Learned counsel for opposite parties has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for bail. 16. Learned counsel for opposite parties has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned counsel for opposite party that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 17. It is settled pr....