TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 27.5.2026. He submits that even in the present case the co-accused-Gaurav Singhal, Gurmeet Singh Batra, Vinita, Yasin Sheikh and Deepak Murjhani have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that the only allegation against the applicants is with regard to availing of ITC to the tune of Rs. 174.46 crores based on fake invoices issued by the alleged fake suppliers and fraudulently passed on the ITC to the tune of Rs. 163.50 crores by issuance of fake invoices without actual supply of any underlying goods in contravention of the provisions of CGST Act. After investigation, complaint has been filed and the applicants have been implicated on the basis of the statement of co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. The allegation in paragraph 7 of the complaint is extracted hereunder:- "7. Anchit Goyal s/o Pradeep Goyal (Accused no. 7) and Pradeep Goyal s/o Mishri Lal (Accused no. 8) both were also involved with (1) Yasin Shaikh (2) Deepak Murjani (3) Vinita (4) Gaurav Singhal and (5) Gurmeet Singh Batra in the racket of creation of fake firms and further passing on/availing fake ITC. The same h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed: "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." 7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 8. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicants might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that they might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The opposite party has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is 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 extraordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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." 16. 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciple 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 recognise the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"." 20. 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. 21. Learned counsel for opposite parties has not shown any exceptional circums....