Bail Granted: When Digital Evidence Rules & Tampering Risks Vanish
- Case Citation & Judicial ForumThe Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail in the case of Gaurav Babu Jain v. State of Haryana (Order dated November 3, 2025), setting a significant precedent regarding custody in economic offences.
- Core Allegations & ArrestThe petitioner was arrested under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, alleged to be the mastermind behind a network of 11 bogus firms created solely to generate fake invoices and pass fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC).
- Defense ArgumentsThe petitioner contended that his incriminating statements were coerced, no grounds of arrest were supplied, he had clean antecedents, and the trial was likely to be prolonged for an offence punishable by a maximum of five years.
- Reliance on Supreme Court PrecedentsThe High Court followed the rationale of recent Supreme Court rulings (Vineet Jain, Ashutosh Garg, and Ratnambar Kaushik), which established that prolonged custody is unjustified when the prosecution rests primarily on documentary evidence.
- Nature of Evidence Mitigates RiskThe Court observed that since the evidence involved is largely documentary and electronic in nature, the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or influencing the investigation is significantly reduced.
- Constitutional Rights & PrinciplesIt was held that further incarceration would violate the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, specifically the right to a speedy trial, reaffirming the legal principle that “Bail is the general rule and incarceration is an exception.”
Judgement :- GAURAV-BABU-JAIN