In cases of economic offences under the CGST Act, where the investigation is complete, charge-sheet is filed, and the evidence is primarily documentary, bail should generally be granted unless there are extraordinary circumstances, adhering to the principle that bail is the rule and incarceration the exception.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition for grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS, has been filed by petitioner, an accused in criminal complaint case bearing COMA No.201/2025 dated 13.06.2025 titled “Central Goods & Services Tax Vs. Gaurav Babu Jain” registered against him for the commission of offence punishable under Clauses (b), (c) and (l) of Section 132 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 .

2. In brief, the allegation against petitioner is that he created/setup and elaborate network of 11 tax paying bogus firms solely for the purpose of generating fake invoices and passing fraudulent Input Tax Credit. It has been alleged that petitioner defrauded the State Exchequer of over Rs.16 crores. In the complaint filed by the complainant-department, it has been averred that on the basis of intelligence received from the Data Analytics and Research Cell (DARC), CGST, Gurugram, regarding suspicious firms, investigation was initiated against 09 firms registered in Gurugram that were involved in availing and passing of Fraudulent Input Tax Credit. In the complaint, the details of the above 09 taxpayers have been mentioned. It was noticed that these suspected firms shared a common email-id (summetenterprises@rediffmail.com). Further all 09 suspicious firms were non-existent, same electricity bill/meter number with modified particulars were used for obtaining GST registration of multiple firms, as well as fabricated rent agreements were used. Even call detail records of the mobile numbers registered with these fake firms, as per complainant-department, indicated that they were being used in the mobile handsets with specific IMEI numbers linked to petitioner’s network.

On the basis of incriminating documents collected by the department, search was conducted on 17.04.2025 at the residential premises of petitioner and his associate, as also in his office. Statement of petitioner was recorded, who admitted his role in operating fake firm.

In crux, the allegation against petitioner is that he is the mastermind, who operated 11 bogus firms registered under the CGST in Gurugram, wrongfully availed ITC of Rs.15,68,43,188/- and further passed on the ITC amounting to Rs.16,71,14, 146/-.

Petitioner, who was arrested on 18.04.2025 has been in custody since then. Complaint was filed before the competent Court after completion of necessary investigation/enquiry, the same is pending before the Court.

3. Twice applications for grant of bail moved by the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, were dismissed vide orders dated 08.05.2025 & 25.07.2025 (Annexures P-8 & P-10), respectively. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, as well dismissed the applications for grant of bail vide orders dated 21.06.2025 & 13.08.2025 (Annexures P-9 & P-11), respectively. Aggrieved of the same, present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. On 17.04.2025 at around 09.00 AM, CGST officials conducted search of the house of the petitioner, seized various documents, mobile phones, laptops etc., he was threatened to make incriminating statements and out of sheer fear, he suffered a statement. He was also summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act to appear in the office of Principal Commissionerate, CGST, Gurugram. He duly cooperated in the investigation, but was wrongfully arrested on 18.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that no ground of arrest or reasons to believe were supplied to the petitioner, who is not a signatory, director or beneficiary in either of the said firms, thus, did not get any benefit out of the alleged bogus ITC in his account.

The second leg o