SC Grants Bail as Accused Served 18 Months for Offence with 5-Year Max Sentence
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 13 May, 2025

Case Details: Roshan Chaudhary vs. Union of India - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 941 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dipankar Datta & Manmohan, JJ.
-
K.S. Mahadevan, Ms Swati Bansal, R. Rangarajan, Aravind Gopinathan, Advs., Rajesh Kumar, AOR for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was accused of being involved in a case of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act. After his arrest, he remained in custody while the trial was still pending. His first request for bail was rejected. He then filed a second bail application before the High Court, which was also denied. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, arguing that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence was five years and that he had already been in custody for nearly eighteen months.
He submitted that keeping him in jail any longer before the trial was completed was unfair and not required under the law. He also relied on the legal safeguards provided under Section 69 and Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, along with Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the maximum punishment under the law was five years, and the petitioner had already spent almost eighteen months in custody, there was no justification to keep him in jail while the trial was still going on. The Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed that the petitioner be granted bail, subject to any terms and conditions decided by the trial court.
It also directed the petitioner to attend the trial on the scheduled dates unless officially excused, and gave the trial court the power to cancel the bail if any conditions were violated. The Court made it clear that this order was only about granting bail and should not be treated as any view on the merits of the case.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Roshan Chaudhary v. Union of India [2025] 173 taxmann.com 940 (All.) — Reversed (para 4)
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA