Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the prayer for bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the complaint had already been submitted before the jurisdictional court and the petitioners were last interrogated on October 9, 2026. The Court opined that further detention of the petitioners was unwarranted. The ratio decidendi is that once a complaint is filed and the accused have been in custody for a significant period, and further investigation is ongoing, continued detention may be considered unnecessary, especially when the primary purpose of investigation is to gather evidence for trial. The petitioners were released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, with conditions including physical presence on each date before the trial court, not leaving Kolkata district without permission, and meeting the Investigating Officer weekly until further investigation is completed.

Facts

The petitioners, Santosh Das and Parthasarathi Samanta, applied for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a case under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(C), and 132(1)(l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners had been in custody for 68 days. A complaint had been submitted before the jurisdictional court, though further investigation was ongoing. The CGST Authority opposed the bail, alleging that the petitioners had obtained input credit based on forged and fake documents, despite no actual business activity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continued detention of the petitioners is warranted, considering they have been in custody for 68 days and a complaint has been filed before the jurisdictional court, despite ongoing further investigation? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of bail and the stage of investigation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that their continued detention was unwarranted as the complaint had been filed and they had been in custody for 68 days. They relied on the fact that the complaint had been submitted, even if further investigation was continuing. Revenue's Contention: The CGST Authority opposed the bail application, submitting that fake documents were used to obtain input credit, indicating no business activity. They argued that a case was made out against the petitioners, who would face trial.