Pavan Madanlal vs. The Superintendent Of Central GST, Anti Evasion

Facts

This Criminal Petition was filed by Sri Pavan Madanlal (Accused No.1) under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail. The petitioner was arrested on January 28, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody on January 29, 2026, in connection with FIR No.GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/2502/2024-AE. The FIR was registered by the Superintendent of Central GST, Anti Evasion, Medchal GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad, for alleged offences under Sections 132 (1)(b)(c), (f), and (I) read with Section 132 (1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The allegation is that the petitioner and others availed fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 21.89 crores by using incorrect bills.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since January 29, 2026, and that Accused No.3 has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Considering that the investigation is stated to be completed and the period of incarceration, the Court deemed it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1. The Court did not explicitly rule on the bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable nature of the offence but proceeded to grant bail based on the facts presented. The operative directions included the petitioner executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the respondent authorities at specified times until the charge sheet is filed and thereafter as required, and abiding by the conditions stipulated in Section 480 (3) of BNSS (formerly Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.).

Key Issues

1. Whether the offence alleged against the petitioner under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is bailable and cognizable, as contended by the petitioner, or non-cognizable and non-bailable, as argued by the respondent. This issue turns on the interpretation of Section 132 (1)(f) and (l) versus Section 132 (1)(i) of the Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the offence is bailable and cognizable, that he is innocent, that Accused No.3 was granted bail, and that the investigation is substantially complete, thus warranting bail. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the offence is not under Section 132 (1)(i) but under Section 132 (1)(f) and (l) of the Act, 2017, which are non-cognizable and non-bailable. The respondent also contended that the investigation is not yet complete and the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.