Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner having undergone custody for a considerable period since July 15, 2026. Furthermore, the prosecution report-cum-complaint under Section 210(1)(a) and Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023, had already been submitted. The Court also considered that the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic, with ocular evidence coming from official witnesses. The ratio decidendi is that prolonged incarceration, coupled with the filing of charges and the nature of evidence (documentary/electronic), warrants the grant of bail, especially in the absence of criminal antecedents and with an undertaking to cooperate. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including not disturbing witnesses and cooperating with the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma, is accused in Complaint Case No. 2691 of 2026, instituted under Sections 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f), and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jamshedpur Regional Unit, alleged that the petitioner, as proprietor of M/s Sri Ganesh Trading, received input tax credit amounting to Rs. 1,98,84,000/- in a Canara bank account and Rs. 2,73,07,300/- in his HDFC bank account, totaling Rs. 4,71,91,300/-, based on invoices from fake/non-existent firms. The petitioner has been in custody since July 15, 2026, and claims no criminal antecedents. The prosecution report-cum-complaint has been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the period of incarceration, the nature of evidence, and the absence of criminal antecedents? The petitioner argued that co-ordinate benches of the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in *Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India* (2023) 2 SCC 621, have granted bail to co-accused. They highlighted that the punishment under Section 132(1)(l)(i) of the GST Act may extend to five years. The petitioner emphasized his custody period since July 15, 2026, lack of criminal antecedents, and his undertaking to cooperate with the trial, given that the evidence is primarily documentary and electronic. The revenue (DGGI) vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.