Regular bail was granted under Section 132 as charge-sheet was filed and custody exceeded nine months.

By | August 5, 2026
0 Comment

Regular bail was granted under Section 132 as charge-sheet was filed and custody exceeded nine months.

Issue

Whether regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 132 of the CGST/RGST Act should be granted to an accused alleged to be involved in a large-scale GST fraud, where the charge-sheet has been filed and the period of incarceration exceeds nine months.

Facts

  • The applicant was arrested by DGGI authorities in connection with an alleged organized GST evasion ring operating in the marble trade under Sections 132 and 69 of the CGST/RGST Act.

  • Revenue alleged the creation of approximately 13 bogus firms, issuance of fraudulent e-way bills, clandestine removal of goods, and non-filing of tax returns, with the estimated tax evasion rising from Rs. 10 crores to approximately Rs. 40 crores.

  • The High Court initially dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the large-scale structured fraud, active ongoing investigation, potential risk of document destruction, and severity of economic offenses.

  • The applicant appealed the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court through a Criminal Appeal.

  • The applicant contended that he had undergone incarceration for over nine months, the charge-sheet had already been filed by the investigating agency, and the alleged offenses were triable by a Magistrate.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court held that since the charge-sheet had already been filed upon completion of the relevant portion of the investigation, continued pre-trial incarceration of the appellant was no longer required.

  • The Court specifically noted the period of custody already undergone (more than nine months) in relation to the maximum statutory punishment prescribable for offenses under Section 132 of the CGST Act.

  • Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and granted regular bail to the appellant, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

Key Takeaways

  • Impact of Filed Charge-Sheet on Custody: Once the charge-sheet is filed, the necessity for continued detention decreases significantly as the primary investigation phase relying on the custody of the accused is complete.

  • Proportionality to Maximum Sentence: The duration of pre-trial incarceration (e.g., over nine months) relative to the maximum statutory sentence under Section 132 of the CGST Act is a vital consideration when evaluating bail applications in GST fraud cases.

  • Bail in Economic Offenses: While economic offenses are viewed seriously, prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot serve as a substitute for punishment where investigation is complete and trial is pending.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Narendra Choudhary
v.
Union of India
M.M. SUNDRESH and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2788 of 2026†
MAY  22, 2026
Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Prem Sukh Choudhary, Ms. Charu Trivedi, P. Krishnadevan, Ms. Nikita Bhardwaj, Advs. and Shyam Gopal, AOR for the Petitioner. Davinder Pal Singh, ASG, Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Santosh Kumar and Rajan Kumar Choursia, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant seeks regular bail in connection with Complaint No. File No. DGGI/INT/INTL/755/2025-GR-N, dated 13.08.2025 filed before the Hon’ble Special Court (Economic Offences), District-Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(g),(h) and (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘CGST Act’).
3. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned ASG appearing for the respondent-Union of India.
4. We have been informed that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 9 months. The charge sheet has already been filed in the present case.
5. In such view of the matter, the continued incarceration of the appellant is no longer required, especially, by taking note of the maximum punishment that can be awarded against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act, in the event of the charges being proved against him.
6. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and grant bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is granted bail on the terms and conditions subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.
8. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.