The court granted bail due to the completion of the investigation, lack of necessity for the applicant's presence, and no imminent trial, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of allegations against the accused.

ORDER :

(M.R. MENGDEY, J.) 

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being File No. DGGI/INV/GST/2631/2024-Gr-F-O/o ADG-DGGI-ZU-SURAT for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(i) or 132(1)(b) or 132(1)(c) or 132(1)(d) of Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP for the Respondent – State. and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 - Intelligence Officer.

3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State, learned Advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.2 - Intelligence Officer, Surat.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 17.01.2025 and since then the Applicant is in the custody. The investigation of the offence is over and the Respondent Agency has filed the complaint after conclusion of inquiry very recently i.e. 18.03.2025. The presence of the present Applicant is no more requried for the purpose of investigation. He further submitted that the Applicant is alleged to have wrongfully availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit worth Rs.32 Crores. The offence is punishable for imprisonment of five years. The offence alleged against the present Applicant being a Magistrate Triable, there is no chance of commencement and conclusion of the trial in near future. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail and submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 - Intelligence Officer has also opposed the present Application. He submitted that the present Applicant had entered into transaction worth Rs.200 Crores with 40 fictitious firms and had wrongfully availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit wroth Rs.31,93,00,000/-. Actually no exchange of goods had taken place amongst the parties. The transactions which were shown by the present Applicant were sham and bogus. The offence committed by the present Applicant is offences against the public exchequer. He therefore prayed to dismiss the present Application.

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the investigating agency after the conclusion of the inquiry has filed a complaint before the competent court against the present Applicant for the present offences which indicates that the presence of the present Applicant is no more requried for the purpose of investigation. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 17.01.2025 and is in custody since then. The offence alleged against the present Applicant is punishable with imprisonment for a period of five years. There is no likelihood of commencement and conclusion of trial in the near future. Considering these aspects, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant