Charge sheet filing and documentary nature of evidence justify regular bail in CGST fraud cases.

The applicant was arrested on 20.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. AD2212250057378B for allegedly issuing fake invoices totaling ₹8,57,15,507/- and fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC)

Investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) revealed that the applicant, in collusion with co-accused Aman Kumar Agrawal, operated approximately 60 fictitious firms using fraudulent Aadhaar/PAN cards and SIM cards

Evidence retrieved from mobile devices included login credentials for GST and E-way bill portals and records of transactions routed through banking channels to simulate genuineness

The applicant sought regular bail, contending that he derived no personal financial benefit—a requirement for liability under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act—and citing his incarceration since December 2025, the filing of the charge sheet, and his medical condition (Thalassemia)

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the economic offence and the stage of the criminal proceedings.

Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail

Sections 31(1) (issuance of invoices), 35 (maintenance of accounts), and 132(1)(b) (issuance of invoices without supply leading to wrongful ITC) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017

Established bail jurisprudence, which weighs the seriousness of the economic offence against the duration of custody, the completion of investigation (filing of charge sheet), and the necessity of further custodial interrogation

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations involving a significant loss to the exchequer but balanced this against the procedural status of the case

It noted that the prosecution’s case against the applicant relies heavily on documentary and digital evidence, such as Tally data and Excel sheets, which have already been seized

The Court observed that since the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in custody since 20.12.2025, further custodial interrogation is not required

Furthermore, the Court took into account the applicant’s argument that there was no direct evidence of personal financial gain, which is a critical element for criminal liability under the CGST Act, and the fact that the trial is yet to commence

The Court determined that continued incarceration was unjustified given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the lack of a prior criminal record

The Court held that despite the seriousness of the fiscal offence, the completion of the investigation and the nature of the evidence warranted release

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the order remaining in force until the disposal of the case