2026-VIL-183-CHG

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Anticipatory Bail - Applicant apprehending arrest in connection with alleged offenses under Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the absence of an FIR bars the grant of anticipatory bail – HELD As per the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the absence of an FIR does not bar the grant of anticipatory bail, Regarding the nature and gravity of the offenses, the allegations primarily pertain to documentary and digital evidence related to the wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. The maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132 of the CGST Act is only five years, which does not qualify as a heinous or violent crime warranting pre-trial incarceration. The limited statutory severity of punishment, coupled with the nature of the allegations, militated against the necessity of custodial detention at that stage - The relevant records and data have already been seized, and one co-accused has been granted regular bail, indicating that the applicant's continued liberty, subject to reasonable conditions, does not pose a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the accusation, the character of the evidence, the stage of investigation, the maximum punishment prescribed, and the fact that custodial interrogation has not been shown to be indispensable, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to the imposition of certain conditions - The anticipatory bail application is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page