Regular bail granted in GST economic-offence prosecution after charge-sheet filing and consideration of bail parity.

The applicant, proprietor of M/s Aadeshwar Trade Link, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2026 registered by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, GST Department, Chhattisgarh, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)([OCR unclear]) of the GST Act, 2017.

The prosecution alleged that he created a network of bogus or non-existent firms to facilitate the transfer of input tax credit (ITC), fraudulently claimed and availed ITC of approximately ₹8.22 crores without actual receipt of goods, and issued invoices reflecting tax liability exceeding ₹11.36 crores, thereby causing substantial loss to the Government.

The applicant had been in custody since 23 June 2026.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the offences were compoundable, the case was based principally on documentary evidence, and a co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to a co-accused in a similar matter.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the gravity of the economic offence, the alleged loss to revenue, and the applicant’s non-cooperation with the investigation.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite allegations of large-scale fraudulent availment of ITC and creation of bogus firms?

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the grant of bail in similar cases justified release on bail?

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)([OCR unclear]) of the GST Act, 2017.

The applicant also relied upon Section 138 of the GST Act concerning compounding of offences, although the Court did not expressly base its decision on that provision.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the status of the investigation and charge-sheet, the documentary character of the evidence, and parity with similarly placed accused.

It also took note of bail granted by the Supreme Court in similar economic-offence matters and by a co-ordinate Bench in MCRC No. 6572 of 2026.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegations that the applicant had operated a network of bogus firms and fraudulently availed ITC amounting to approximately ₹8.22 crores.

However, for the purpose of bail, it attached significance to the applicant’s custody since 23 June 2026, the fact that the investigation had culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet, and the existence of comparable bail orders passed by the Supreme Court and a co-ordinate Bench.

The documentary nature of the evidence and the absence of a demonstrated likelihood of its tampering, as urged by the applicant, also supported interim liberty.

Balancing the gravity of the economic allegations against the procedural stage of the case and the principle of parity, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The applicant, Adeshwar Chauradiya, was directed to be released in Crime No. 04/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 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.