Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant loss to the public exchequer constitute a distinct class. Judicial discretion in denying release, despite prolonged pretrial incarceration remains valid, as statutory provisions regarding mandatory release are not absolute but are subject to the court’s assessment of the crime's gravity.

ORDER :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS’) on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with Case No. F. NO. DGGI/INT/INTL/755/2025-Gr-N registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, for the offences under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, ‘CGST Act’).

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no involvement in the alleged offence. It is contended that the entire case of the department rests primarily on the statements recorded of the other co-accused- Narendra Chaudhary under Section 70 of the CGST Act and apart from the same, there is no independent or corroborative material on record connecting the petitioner with the syndicate who is responsible for creating fake firms and issuance of fake bills/invoices and e-ways bills for supply of granite and marbles.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner satisfies the triple test, inasmuch as he has no criminal antecedents and is a permanent resident and, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. It is contended that the entire case rests on documentary evidence already in the possession of the Department and there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. The alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum punishment of five years.

4. It is further submitted that the investigation in the present case stands concluded and a detailed complaint has already been filed and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The accused petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.08.2025 and has undergone a substantial period of incarceration and no recovery of any document or material remains to be effected from him.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that no substantial progress has been made in the trial and the proceedings are moving at a snail’s pace. The petitioner is in custody for a considerable period and considering that the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132 of the CGST Act is five years, the continued incarceration of the petitioner is unjustified. Furthermore, in view of the mandate laid down under Section 480(6) of BNSS (old, Section 437(6) Cr.P.C), the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Lastly, it is submitted that considering the voluminous documentary evidence and the multiplicity of transactions involved in the present case, the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The petitioner has already been in custody for a substantial period of time and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose and prolonged detention of the petitioner would amount to an unwarranted curtailment of his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, considering the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner and likely delay in conclusion of trial, the present bail application may be allowed.

7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petition