Regular bail granted in GST prosecution after complaint filing, considering no antecedents and likely trial delay.

The applicant, a partner of M/s Om Kiran Ispat Udyog, was arrested in connection with Crime No. DGGI/INV/GST/111/2026-Gr-VI for the alleged offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”).

The prosecution alleged that he fraudulently availed and utilised Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs. 6,92,97,453 without actual receipt or supply of goods, on the basis of invoices issued by 12 allegedly fictitious firms.

The applicant contended that the case was based predominantly on documentary evidence already collected by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (“DGGI”), that the investigation had continued for more than one year, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had been in custody since 15 June 2026.

The DGGI opposed bail, submitting that the complaint had already been filed against the applicant.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while facing prosecution under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act?

Whether the filing of the complaint, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial justified grant of bail?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to consider the applicant’s prayer for regular bail.

The prosecution alleged an offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, relating to fraudulent availment or utilisation of input tax credit without actual receipt or supply of goods, and treated the offence as cognizable and non-bailable under Sections 132(1)(i) and 132(5) of the Act.

The applicant relied upon Section 138 of the CGST Act, which permits compounding of offences, and on Vineet Jain v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 513, for the proposition that offences under Section 132 carrying a maximum sentence of five years ordinarily warrant consideration of bail in the normal course.

The governing bail considerations applied by the Court included the filing of the complaint, the applicant’s period of incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

The Court did not undertake a detailed determination of the applicant’s guilt or the merits of the alleged fraudulent input tax credit transactions.

It noted that the complaint had already been filed, that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, that he had remained in custody since 15 June 2026, and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Considering that the prosecution case substantially involved documentary material and that the applicant’s continued detention was not shown to be necessary until trial, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

The alleged seriousness of the economic offence and the filing of the complaint were not treated as sufficient, by themselves, to justify continued incarceration.

The High Court directed that Harish Wadhwani be released on regular bail in connection with the stated DGGI case, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 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.