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.
