Complaint filed and prolonged custody justify bail where trial is likely to be substantially delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. AD220126006503S registered by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Raipur Zonal Unit, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(f), punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The prosecution alleged that M/s Shristi Construction, a proprietorship concern registered in the name of Premdas Panika, wrongfully availed and passed on Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual receipt or supply of goods, by issuing invoices unsupported by corresponding movement of goods.

The alleged fraudulent ITC availed was approximately ₹17,18,23,354, while fake ITC of approximately ₹10,62,66,870 was allegedly passed on across multiple States.

The applicant denied any ownership, managerial or controlling role in the firm and contended that his implication was primarily based on statements of co-accused persons and third parties, without independent evidence directly connecting him with the alleged offences.

The applicant had remained in custody since 29 April 2026. He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the allegations of fraudulent availment and passing on of substantial fake ITC under the CGST Act, 2017?

Whether the filing of the complaint, the applicant’s period of custody, the likely duration of the trial, and the grant of bail to a co-accused justified the applicant’s release despite the prosecution’s contention that further investigation was continuing?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(f), read with Section 132(1)(i), of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning specified GST offences involving wrongful availment or utilisation and fraudulent passing on of ITC.

The Court applied the general bail principles requiring consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, the likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.

It also took into account the principle of parity arising from the grant of bail to a co-accused in a connected matter.

After hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, the Court considered the nature of the allegations and the substantial amount of alleged fraudulent ITC.

However, it gave weight to the fact that the complaint had already been filed against the applicant, that the applicant had been in custody since 29 April 2026, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

The Court also considered that a co-accused had already been granted bail in MCRC No. 5936 of 2026 by order dated 29 July 2026, thereby supporting consideration of parity.

Although the prosecution asserted that investigation into the larger conspiracy was continuing, the Court nevertheless found the circumstances sufficient to justify release on bail, without undertaking a detailed examination of the evidentiary merits at the interlocutory stage.

Rohan Tanna was directed to be released in connection with Crime No. AD220126006503S upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

The bail order was directed to remain in force until disposal of the case.