##PAGE1##

1

GOURI MUDALIAR

Digitally signed 2026:CGHC:15137 by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.04.02 16:52:19 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 1482 of 2026

Anil Singh S/o Late Shri Lallan Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Tifra, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

Union Of India Through DGGI (Directorate General Of GST Intelligence), Zonal Unit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

For Applicant : Shri Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate.

For Respondent : Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

01/04/2026

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under

Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. AD220126005154U, Police Station DGGI, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

2

132 (1) (c) and (f) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the investigation

originated from a firm named M/s Ramdoot Enterprises (Mirzapur, UP), which was found to be procuring goods from non-existent or suspended firms. Anil Singh, acting as the operator/director of M/s Sonam Sales and M/s Yuvraj Trading Company, is accused of facilitating "bogus billing". It is alleged that the present applicant is operating two firms namely M/s Yuvraj Trading and M/s Sonam Sales at Chhattisgarh and they have availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) through M/s Ramdoot Enterprises without the actual physical movement or delivery of goods to their destinations. Based on these allegations, the aforesaid offence has been

registered against the applicant. Hence this bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that no incriminating material or bogus invoices have been recovered from the applicant, and the case is primarily based on third-party records, not on any direct evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that the investigation is substantially complete, as the applicant’s statement has been recorded and relevant searches have already been conducted. Therefore, continued incarceration serves no useful purpose and amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. He would submit that the allegations regarding non-movement of goods are

3

matters of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of bail. The maximum punishment under Section 132(1) of the GST Act is five years, and thus the principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” applies. He would submit that no proper tax determination under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act has been carried out, and the arrest itself is illegal for want of valid authorization under Section 69(1) of the GST Act. He would submit that the applicant is a permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of absconding, and he is ready to furnish surety and comply with all conditions imposed by this Court. He would submit that the applicant is in custody since 16/01/2026, the investigation is complete, complaint has already been filed, and no further custodial interrogation is

required. Hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the bail application

and submits that the applicant has been involved in a well- planned fraud of availing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) through bogus invoices without actual supply of goods. It is submitted that investigation clearly shows that the applicant, being the proprietor and controller of the firms, knowingly availed huge ITC on the basis of fake invoices received through WhatsApp, without any supporting documents like e-way bills, transport receipts, or actual movement of goods. Statements of the applicant and other persons also confirm that no goods were ever supplied a