Bail Can’t Be Denied Merely Because Probe Continues Against Absconding Co-Accused | HC

Case Details: Narender Kumar vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ms Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
• Anubhav Singh, Nitin Kumar & Ms Maria Mary Sunil, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Ms Vertika Sharma, Kunal Goswami & Ms Khushboo, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee was arrested for an alleged GST offence involving fraudulent ITC through fictitious firms. The grounds of arrest were supplied on the same day, and the prosecution complaint was subsequently filed. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) submitted that multiple arrests had been effected while the alleged remained absconding and that trails of transactions were still being identified. Bail applications filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge were dismissed despite filing of the complaint. It was contended that their investigation was complete and custody had been maintained, asserting that pendency of investigation against the absconding co-accused could not justify denial of bail. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that pendency of investigation against an absconding co-accused cannot constitute a valid ground to deny bail. The Court observed that Sections 132 of the CGST Act, Delhi GST Act, Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, collectively support consideration of custodial status, completion of investigation, and filing of complaint in assessing bail. The Court applied these provisions to the facts, noting that the applicant’s involvement had been fully investigated and quantified, and that the continuing probe against absconding persons did not affect the applicant’s entitlement to bail. Consequently, the High Court directed that bail be granted in favour of the assessee.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Vineet Jain v. UOI [2025] 174 taxmann.com 139/99 GSTL 129 (SC)
• Ratnambar Kaushik v. UOI [2022] 145 taxmann.com 296/[2023] 95 GST 548/68 GSTL 233 (SC)(para 26) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 (para 3)
• Vineet Jain v. UOI [2025] 174 taxmann.com 139/99 GSTL 129 (SC) (para 24)
• Ratnambar Kaushik v. UOI [2022] 145 taxmann.com 296/[2023] 95 GST 548/68 GSTL 233 (SC) (para 25).