Application of Bail Was to Be Allowed as There Is No Conclusive Evidence and Co-Accused Having More Serious Role Had Already Been Released on Bail | HC

Case Details: Gurmeet Singh Batra @ Sahil v. Union of India - [2024] 166 taxmann.com 47 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was arrested for his alleged involvement in creating fake firms and issuing bogus invoices without the actual supply of goods/services. The applicant was charged under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f), and 132(1)(l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’).

The applicant sought bail, arguing that nothing was recovered from his possession and there was no direct evidence connecting him to the creation of fake firms or the passing of fake ITC. The applicant highlighted that a co-accused, with a more serious role, Gaurav Singhal, had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the same Court.

High Court Held

The Court noted that there was a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the device used to create the fake firms. It is also noted that, Gaurav Singhal, the co-accused with a more serious role, had already been released on bail, and the petitioner had no prior criminal history.

Therefore, the High Court granted bail on certain conditions such as the applicant must not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, must appear in court on scheduled dates, must not commit any similar offences, and must surrender his passport and not leave the country without permission.