GoMechanic Co-Founder Amit Bhasin Gets Bail In GST Case As P&H HC Cites Completed Probe And Department’s No-Further-Arrests Directive

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for alleged offences under Section 132 of that Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others were connected with a network of firms used to fraudulently avail, utilise, and pass on input tax credit without corresponding supplies; its case relied on statements and documentary material.

The investigation concerning the petitioner was complete, and a complaint had been filed on 22 September 2026.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) empowered the Court to consider the petitioner’s application for regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Section 132 of the CGST Act, while Section 69 concerns arrest under that Act.

In assessing whether continued detention was warranted, the Court considered the completion of the investigation, the filing of the complaint, the absence of a demonstrated need for further custodial interrogation, the maximum punishment alleged, and relevant circumstances including bail granted to a co-accused.

The petitioner cited Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, (2025) 6 SCC 545, on arrest-related requirements; however, the Court did not decide the legality of the earlier arrest.

The Court found that the investigation was complete and the complaint had been filed, so further custody was not required for investigative purposes; the Department also failed to demonstrate why continued detention was necessary.

The alleged offences carried a maximum punishment of five years, and the Court considered the co-accused’s grant of bail and the Department’s instruction against future GST arrests as relevant circumstances favouring release, while clarifying that neither circumstance by itself resolved the legality of the petitioner’s earlier arrest.

In the totality of the circumstances, further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

The petitioner was directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits, leaving the trial court to decide the case independently on the evidence.

The petition and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.