Ongoing investigation qua absconding person, cannot be a ground to deny bail to person against whom the investigations have been completed and the Complaint filed in the Court.
In a recent judgment, Delhi High Court has granted bail to the accused of GST evasion holding that ongoing investigation qua one absconding person, cannot be a ground to deny bail to person against whom the investigations have been completed and the Complaint filed in the Court.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4851 (2025) (11) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case, the applicant had filed a Regular Bail Application u/s 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a case dealt with by DGGI u/s 132(1)(c)(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to claiming fake/bogus ITC.
The GST Department opposed the Bail Application and submitted that it was a case of creation of availment and utilization of fraudulent ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 12 crores, through the creation of fake Firms. The accused persons, including the applicant were alleged to be involved in forming bogus Firms using KYC details of different persons. Dummy Proprietors were created who filed GST Returns in order to receive the refund in the corresponding Bank Accounts. The accused persons were alleged to have prepared outward Invoices and e-way Bills while the goods which did not exist, were invoiced at inflated values, to maximize refund and duty drawbacks. Signatures of the dummy Proprietors were taken on blank cheque books.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the GST Department opposed the Bail on the ground that the investigation was ongoing qua one absconding person, but that cannot be a ground to deny bail to the Applicant against whom the investigations have been completed and the Complaint filed in the Court.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the fundamental principles for consideration in a Bail for the offences under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act were explained by the Apex Court observing that when the maximum sentence was of 5 years with fine, charge-sheet had been filed, the appellant was in custody for a period of almost 7 months, the case was triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution was based on documentary evidence, there were no antecedents, the appellant could not have been denied the benefit of bail. In such cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances.
The Hon’ble High Court further noted that similarly, in another case while dealing with bail under Section 132(1)(a), (h), (k) and (l) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act the Apex Court granted bail in a case where the accused had already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial would take some time and while in custody, the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High Court noted that when the above principles are applied, the Applicant had been judicial custody since more than 5 months, the Complaint had already been filed in the Court. The entire evidence had already been collected and is primarily be documentary. He had no criminal antecedents. There was little likelihood of tampering with the evidence or of influencing the witnesses, who were all official witnesses. Further, as observed in the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, there existed no extraordinary circumstances to deny the bail to the Applicant.Â
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court granted regular Bail to the Applicanton on following conditions: 1. To furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; 2. To keep the Investigating Officer/Court about its address and the mobile phone and inform fresh address/mobile number, in case of change; 3. not to contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case; and 4. not to tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Ongoing investigation qua absconding person, no ground to deny bail to arrested person
- Accommodation entry operators also obtain PAN, file ITRs, open bank account
- ICAI sets up two new branches : at Morbi and Bhiwandi
- Govt. notifies amended Protocol of India & Belgium for DTAA & Fiscal Evasion of taxes
- CCI inviting applications for engagement of Young Professionals (YPs)
