ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner acted as middleman by procuring GST registration pertaining to defunct companies and passed over the same to one Rakesh, who utilised the same for the purpose of raising GST invoices and in turn, the said invoices were given to the petitioner, who, thereafter, filed the statutory returns. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner was receiving commission for selling the details of GST registration of defunct companies and that he was also aware that raising of invoices in the names of the defunct companies is illegal and, thereby, caused loss of GST to the tune of several Crores of rupees to the exchequer. It is the further stand of the respondent that the offence u/s 132 (5) of the CGST Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence and the petitioner having committed the said offence, no bail can be granted to him. It is the further case of the respondent that since investigation is on, allowing the petitioner to go out on bail will very much hamper the investigation.

3. Before the Courts below, it was the case of the petitioner that he was detained illegally from 16.3.2021 and only pursuant to the complaint dated 18.3.21, the petitioner was arrested on 19.3.21. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was merely a middleman in procuring the credentials of the defunct companies and passing on the same to other persons for commission and the petitioner is in no way involved in the claiming of exemptions by utilising the said credentials and the petitioner had not filed any statutory returns and is not a beneficiary of the said tax evasion. It is the further stand of the petitioner that arrest u/s 132 (5) of the CGST Act is to be made only after assessment is made and in the case on hand, no assessment has been made by the respondent relating to tax evasion.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the stand of the petitioner in the affidavit further submits that merely because the petitioner had procured the credentials of the defunct companies and given them to other individuals would not in any way attract the offence u/s 132 (5) of the CGST Act, more so when the respondent has not established that the petitioner has been a beneficiary through the said transactions. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that unless an assessment is made quantifying the loss caused to the exchequer and the culpability of the petitioner is made out by materials available on record, implicating the petitioner of the offence u/s 132 (5) of the CGST Act would not survive. Merely to deny the petitioner of his constitutional safeguards, viz., bail, the petitioner has been roped in as accused with the aid of Section 132 (5) of the CGST Act. Further, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the arrest of the petitioner itself is illegal, as he was detained for more than three days illegally before making the arrest, which is pursuant to the complaint lodged and in that backdrop as well, the act of the respondent reveals the mala fide intent to implicate the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been released on bail. Accordingly, she prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. The said stand of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent by submitting that the petitioner, knowingly, had indulged in the said act of providing the credentials of the defunct companies for monetary value which was utilised in getting tax remission by the said individuals without there being any supply of goods. It is the further submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had not only received illegal gains from several persons, but has also utilised his mobile number for commu