The court granted bail under specific conditions, emphasizing the need for compliance and the importance of maintaining trial integrity.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with File No.DGGI/AZU/Gr.C/12(4)21/2024-25 at Ahmedabad under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has 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 vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail. Learned APP submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Tirth Nayak for the respondent No.2 has opposed the present application contending that the applicant had entered into clandestine transactions and had taken the advantage of the Input Tax Credit worth Rs.14,20,91,677/-. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

5.2 Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply which is ordered to be taken on record.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. As per the case of prosecution the present applicant is alleged to have entered into the fictitious transaction with several firms and had taken the advantage of Input Tax Credit worth Rs.14,20,91,677/-. Admittedly, out of the said amount, the applicant has deposited the amount of Rs.12,06,50,000/-. Learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant also makes a statement at the bar that the applicant is also ready to deposit the outstanding amount and the Demand Daft for the said amount is also ready with him, which shall be deposited with the Registry of this court during the course of day. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has 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 is in custody since 5.3.2025.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the aforesaid File number and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid File number on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidenc