Srikant Vaishnav @ Santosh Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Criminal Procedure — Bail — GST prosecution — Alleged availment/generation of fake Input Tax Credit and fake invoices — Applicant not named in FIR — Search conducted in respect of business owned by another person — Applicant allegedly prosecuted on suspicion — No specific material evidence connecting applicant with alleged GST offence — No criminal history — Applicant in custody since 23/03/2026 — No allegation of non-cooperation with investigation or trial — No material showing likelihood of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, fleeing from justice or subverting the course of justice — Principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” reiterated — Article 21 of Constitution — Absence of exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail — Bail granted.
The applicant was prosecuted in connection with Case Crime No. 402 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 132 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegation related to fake Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs. 90 lakhs and generation of fake invoices of approximately Rs. 90 lakhs. The applicant contended that he was not named in the First Information Report; the search had been conducted in respect of B.P. Services, owned by Brijesh Kumar Pachauri; and that there was no material evidence against him and he had been prosecuted merely on suspicion. The State and GST Department opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix.
The High Court noticed that the State had not placed on record any criminal antecedent which would disentitle the applicant from bail. There was also no allegation that the applicant had failed to cooperate with the investigation or proceedings before the trial Court. The Court reiterated, with reference to Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, a principle founded particularly upon Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further found that no material had been shown indicating that the applicant was likely to tamper with evidence or witnesses, intimidate witnesses, subvert the course of justice, flee from justice, repeat the offence, or otherwise prejudice the prosecution. The State also failed to demonstrate that the applicant’s release would be contrary to the larger interests of the public or the State.
Held: Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and the totality of the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant had made out a case for bail. Bail application allowed, subject to specified conditions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the G.S.T. department and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that search was conducted in respect of B.P. Services of which Brijesh Kumar Pachauri is the owner. There were fake Input Tax Credit about Rs. 90 lakhs and fake invoices were generated of Rs. 90 lakhs. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the basis of suspicion applicant has been prosecuted. There is no material evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.3.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the G.S.T. department opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.
5. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.
6. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.
7. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
8. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
10. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant-Srikant Vaishnav @ Santosh involved in Case Crime No. 402 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 132 of U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017, Police Station Gaunda, District Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
vi. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
