Grant of bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception, even in serious economic offences, provided the accused has no criminal antecedents, the evidence is primarily documentary, and continued incarceration serves no purpose while the trial remains pending and unlikely to conclude soon.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral):

This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. The petitioner who is in custody has sought the benefit of bail in a complaint case filed by the respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 132(1) (c & 1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, hereinafter being referred to as ‘CGST Act’, only and under Section 132(1) (i) of CGST and Sections 132(1)(i) of Punjab State Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, both read with Section 20 of IGST Act 2017 .

2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on the basis of baseless allegations firstly a raid was conducted at the principal place of his business on 19.01.2026 and certain documents were seized by projecting that petitioner and his partner have claimed 'input tax credit' in an illegal manner. As per petitioner on the same day they were taken into custody, but in an illegal manner their formal arrest was shown on 20.01.2026. According to petitioner, his arrest was in violation of the settled principle of law as the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. While claiming that no illegal acts, whatsoever, has been committed by him or his partner it has been alleged that proper proofs/documents with regard to legal claim of 'Input Tax Credit' were handed over to the officers of the respondent, but while ignoring all the above mentioned valid documents, his illegal arrest has been made. Hence the present petition.

3. The above mentioned petition has been opposed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent and a detailed written reply has been filed. In the abovesaid reply each and every ground taken by the petitioner in his petition for bail, has been controverted by the respondent. It has been alleged that after thorough investigation, prior to raid, it was observed that petitioner and his partner had been claiming 'Input Tax Credit' in an illegal manner, and that there was no actual transaction of goods between the petitioner and the so-called supplier, and thus, while claiming 'Input Tax Credit' in an illegal manner huge loss, to the tune of Rs.47.50 crores, on the basis of fake invoices of taxable value of Rs.263.94 crores had been caused. While defending it action, wherein the raid was conducted and the petitioner arrested, the respondent has alleged that in view of fraudulent act committed by the petitioner causing huge loss to the State Exchequer, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a piece living and law abiding citizen pursuing his business in a legitimate manner, and that the business entity of the petitioner namely ‘M/s Maruti Alloys’ is involved in active business, being a furnace unit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the abovesaid business entity is duly registered with ‘Goods and Service Tax Department’, vide registration dated 20.09.2018, and that the prosecution of the petitioner on the ground of illegal claim of 'Input Tax Credit' is a fallacious.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that without any legal basis and without any eviden