Gulbahar Malik vs. Union Of INDIA Repr. Thr. The Investigating Officer Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court considered the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, which was stated to be more than two months. The Court found itself inclined to release the petitioner on bail. The reasoning appears to be primarily based on the duration of pre-trial detention. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. This bail is to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Economic Offence, Jamshedpur, in connection with the specified complaint case and file number. No specific findings were made on the merits of the allegations of GST evasion or the setting up of fake firms, as the decision was focused on the bail application and the period of custody.

Facts

The petitioner, Gulbahar Malik, proprietor of M/s. Ranchi Trading Co., is accused in Complaint Case No. 2933 of 2025, arising from File No. DGGI/INTL/1465/2024-GRC-O/o ADD-DGGI-RU-JAMSHEDPUR. The case involves alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner is alleged to have evaded GST amounting to Rs. 27.52 crores from the financial year 2021 until the present. A prosecution report has been submitted. The petitioner has been in custody for over two months. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) alleges the petitioner set up several fake firms to evade GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 2933 of 2025, arising out of File No. DGGI/INTL/1465/2024-GRC-O/o ADD-DGGI-RU-JAMSHEDPUR, for offences registered under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the prosecution report has been submitted and that the maximum punishment for GST evasion is five years. The petitioner has already undergone custody for more than two months, suggesting this period is significant for bail consideration. Revenue's Contention: The Union of India, represented by the DGGI, contended that the petitioner has allegedly set up several fake firms to evade GST. A charge sheet has been submitted in the case under various sections of the B.N.S. (though the specific sections of B.N.S. are not detailed in the judgment).