IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8756 of 2025]

SANJAY JAIN … APPELLANT VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8775 of 2025]

DUSHYANT CHAUDHARY … APPELLANT VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8776 of 2025]

NIKHIL GOEL … APPELLANT VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.18530 of 2025]

IRFAN MALIK … APPELLANT VS.

UNION OF INDIA … RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JATINDDERI KPAURANKAR DATTA, J.

Date: 2026.01.12 Reason:

1. Leave granted.

2. In the year 2021, the appellants were arrested on varying dates in relation to offences under sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 under the CGST Commissionerate, District Meerut. Four complaint cases¹ were initiated against the appellants - Dushyant, Sanjay, Nikhil and Irfan Malik. Their regular bail applications were rejected by the courts concerned.

3. The allegations against the appellants are that they were operating a network of fictitious firms by obtaining GST registrations in the names of their associates and relatives. These entities allegedly used to issue fake bills and invoices to various recipients without any actual supply of goods, with the intent of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit.

4. After a lockdown was imposed because of outbreak of COVID, the issue of decongestion of jails came to be considered by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020 and, accordingly, vide order dated 23^rd March, 2020, this Court directed all States and Union Territories to constitute a High- Powered Committee to determine classes of prisoners who could be released on parole or interim bail, etc.

5. Keeping in view the guidelines dated 26^th April, 2021 of the High-Powered Committee (which had directed that undertrial prisoners punishable for offences of imprisonment with maximum seven years be released on interim bail for 60 days) and thereafter the decision of this Court dated 16^th July, 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020 (which directed that undertrial prisoners so released shall not be forced to surrender till further others in the meantime), the courts concerned released the appellants on interim bail vide orders of different dates.

6. Almost two years later, this Court vide order dated 24^th March, 2023, withdrew the earlier order dated 16^th July, 2021 and directed the prisoners who had been released to surrender within 15 days.

1 Case No. 4778 of 2021, Case No. 6085 of 2021, Case No. 339 of 2021 and Case No. 1026 of

2021, respectively.

7. The courts concerned thereafter proceeded to reject the bail applications of

the appellants on the ground of jumping interim bail/non-surrender after withdrawal of the benefit granted vide order dated 16th July, 2021.

8. The appellants thereafter approached the High Court by filing regular bail applications, all of which have been dismissed vide the impugned orders after noting that the appellants were not in custody as they had not surrendered.

a. Bail applications2 filed by the appellants – Dushyant, Sanjay and Nikhil -

for grant of regular bail during the pendency of trial in three complaint cases pending against them, were dismissed vide a common impugned order dated 7^th May, 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

b. Bail application3 filed by appellant Irfan Malik was dismissed vide impugned order dated 7^th October, 2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

9. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court by presenting these appeals.

10. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties.

11. The grievance of the appellants is that refusal of the High Court to consider their bail applications on the ground that they had not physically surrendered pursuant t