Bail is the rule and denial is the exception; economic offences require careful consideration of evidence and the nature of accusations.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Bajaj, J.

1. Applicants-Vikrant Singhal and Sachin Singhal have filed this application under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case No. 1101 of 2024, titled Union of India Vs. Vikrant Singhal and others, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, DGGI Ghaziabad. The applicants are in custody since their arrest on 17.10.2024.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Director General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad (in short ‘DGGI Ghaziabad’) Regional Unit instituted a complaint dated 13.12.2024 against nine accused persons, wherein it is alleged that an intelligence input regarding indulgence of the accused persons in passing on of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) was received, and according to it, the accused were issuing fake invoices without supplying underlying goods. Upon this information, a search operation at the relevant places of accused was conducted on 9.10.2024 and 10.10.2024. The three accused persons namely, Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gourav Jain managed to escape from their residence because of the hindrances created by their family members and the summons dated 12.10.2024 and 14.10.2024 issued for their appearance failed to evoke their response. Later, on 16.10.2024 they were associated in the investigation and their statements were recorded under Section 70 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on 16.10.2024 and 17.10.2024, wherein they admitted their engagement in issuance of invoices without supply of material. According to Sachin Singhal and Vikrant Singhal, who are directors of M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MS Singhal Trading India Pvt. Ltd., they had availed Rs 24.12 crores Input Tax Credit and passed on Input Tax Credit of Rs.23.89 crores by issuing invoices without supply of goods. Similarly, the statement of accused Gourav Jain was recorded, who admitted that he had availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit of Rs.67.47 crores and passed on Input Tax Credit of Rs.63.57 crores through his five firms/companies without supply of relevant goods. The complaint also reproduces the statements of the accused persons. Further, it is averred in the complaint that the data of these fraudulent transactions is contained in a google drive, maintained by an employee Ram Gopal @ Deepanshu, who in his statement, admitted that the accused persons have been preparing false invoices for availing/ passing on Input Tax Credit. As per the allegations, the accused are mastermind of running a racket of fake invoicing and had availed and passed on fraudulent Input Tax Credit and committed the offences under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint further contains the details of the arrest of the accused, and their physical custody with the complainant for five days, and also discloses that in all fake Input Tax Credit of Rs. 885 crores was arranged from 143 firms, without supply of underlying goods. The complaint also contains the existence verification of fake firms, their data analysis, financial analysis and concludes that the accused have contravened various provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and prays for taking cognizance of above mentioned offences for the purpose of their prosecution and punishment. A copy of the complaint/ charge sheet dated 13.12.2024 is appended as Annexure SA-1 with supplementary affidavit filed by applicants.

3. The accused-applicants had applied for grant of regular bail before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, but the said concession was declined vide respective orders dated 25.10.2024 and 26.10.2024. Hence, this application.

4. Pursuant to the advance notice, Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for Union of India-opposite party had appeared and filed his counter affidavit dated 16.1.2025 and additional counter affidavit dated 10.2.2025.

5. Le