TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that after more than one year searches have been made. It not a case that applicant has created any forged firm and bonafide buisness transaction between the parties have resulted in proceeding under the C.G.S.T. Act. It is submitted that investigation has been completed and maximum punishment provided is five years. It is further submitted that applicant has one criminal history under the C.G.S.T. Act and the same has been explained in paragraph no. 22 of the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 29.1.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party has opposed the bail application and submits that applicant has one criminal history being Case Crime No.181 of 2023. He further submits that applicant was earlier released under the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court during COVID-19 and there was a direction to surrender within a particular period, however, applicant has not surrendered and as such, he is not entitled for bail. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged. If such a finding is not likely to be arrived at within a reasonable time some relief becomes necessary. Timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice. No material has been shown by State to demonstrate that the conduct of applicant while in jail would disentitle the applicant to be released on bail. 10. 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. 11. 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 applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such person on bail where fact situations require it to do so. 13. Article 21 of Constitution provides that no person will be deprived of his life or liberty except by procedure established by law. The procedure established by law should be just, fair and reasonable. The presumption of innocence is applicable to under trial accused. Even if prima facie case is made out, the constitutional Court while considering the bail application are required to examine whether it is reasonable to keep the accused in custody during trial and in only exceptional cases (like heinous crime) the bail can be denied. 14. In Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No 20996 of 2025 (Atul Mehra Vs. Union of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner." 17. Under Section 132 of CGST Act, maximum punishment provided is 5 years. The prosecution is triable by Magistrate. Applicant is in jail since 29.1.2026. Investigation is completed. 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. 18. In Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660, Hon'ble Supreme Court has recogn....