Case Law Details
Ravi Kumar Vs Prinicipal Commissioner CGST Gurugram And Another (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Bail Granted in Fake GST Billing Case Due to Limited Custody Period and Magistrate-Triable Offence; P&H HC Grants Regular Bail to CA Assistant Accused of Generating Fake GST Returns; ‘Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception’: High Court Grants Relief in GST Evasion Case; High Court Allows Bail in ₹66 Crore GST Evasion Matter Because Trial Was Yet to Conclude.
In Ravi Kumar Vs Principal Commissioner CGST Gurugram And Another, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a petitioner accused in a GST tax evasion case involving alleged fake GST returns, fake bills, e-way bills, and forged documents.
The petition was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a complaint dated 16.01.2026 under clauses (b), (c), and (i) of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the office of a Chartered Accountant and was allegedly involved in generating fake GST returns and forged documents to facilitate tax evasion.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was merely an office assistant and that the concerned Chartered Accountant had not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint. It was also submitted that the petitioner did not directly benefit from the alleged embezzlement. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of the bail plea.
The respondent opposed the bail application, contending that the allegations were grave and involved fraud and embezzlement exceeding Rs. 66 crores through fake bills.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the High Court observed that the offence was triable by a Magistrate and that the petitioner had already undergone approximately six months of custody out of the maximum sentence of five years. The Court held that continued detention would not serve the ends of justice and reiterated the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception.”
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court allowed the petition and directed release of the petitioner on regular bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds. The Court also clarified that if the petitioner was found involved in any other criminal case while on bail, the State would be free to seek cancellation of bail.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Petitioner has filed petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Supraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail in complaint bearing COMA/14/2016 dated 16.01.2026 under Clause (b), (c) and (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 punishable under Clause (i) of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant in the office of a Chartered Accountant and is also a law graduate, was involved in filing fake GST returns, generating fake bills/e-way bills and preparing forged documents for the purpose of tax evasion.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was merely an office hand and that the said Chartered Accountant has not been arrayed as an accused in the said criminal complaint filed by the respondent. As per the role of the petitioner, it is evident that he could not get the direct benefit of the amount of said embezzlement. He relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.2269 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4349 of 2025) titled as Vineet Jain vs. Union of India and judgments of this Court passed in CRM-M-53422-2025 titled as Jashanpal Singh vs. Union of India and CRM-M-503-2026 (O&M) titled as Shivam Gupta vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
4. Learned counsel representing respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. He states that through the fake bills, the petitioner has committed embezzlement and fraud involving an amount of more than Rs.66 crores.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that the offence is triable by the Magistrate and that, out of the total sentence of five years’ imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone approximately six months of custody, continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’.
7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
8. It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.
Author Bio
