Bail to Be Granted in GST Fraud Case Where Continued Detention Would Serve No Useful Purpose Due to Delayed Trial | HC

Case Details: Vikrant Singhal vs. Union of India - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 200 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Manoj Bajaj, J.
• Shad Khan, Shishir Prakash for the Petitioner.
• Parv Agarwal for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner sought regular bail in a GST fraud case under Sections 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. He was accused of issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods, thereby availing and passing on fraudulent ITC through two companies. The total alleged fraud across 143 fake firms was ?885 crores. The petitioner had confessed during investigation, and digital evidence was recovered. He had been in custody, with the trial yet to begin.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that while economic offences require a distinct approach, courts must consider the nature of accusations, evidence, and potential punishment. Since the case was based on documentary evidence, official witnesses, and the trial was indefinitely delayed, continued detention would serve no useful purpose. Bail was granted subject to requisite bonds and trial court conditions.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 – (para 14) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 (para 14).