Economic offence prosecutions habitually argue that the magnitude of the alleged fraud should itself decide bail. Courts, equally habitually, reply that gravity is one factor among several — and that once investigation is complete, continued custody must justify itself. On 17 September 2026, Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of the High Court of Judicature at Patna granted regular bail in Sanjeet Kumar Pandey v. Union of India through the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 56740 of 2026 — a prosecution under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f) and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 involving alleged revenue implications of approximately ₹44.30 crore.
The prosecution case
GST Intelligence unearthed what it described as an organised network issuing fraudulent invoices through a proprietorship firm, generating input tax credit against transactions that existed only on paper. The petitioner, an accountant, was cast as the operational centre of the scheme — the person managing GST login credentials, orchestrating the fake invoicing, and routing the resulting funds. The aggregate revenue implication was put at about ₹44.30 crore, comfortably above the ₹5 crore threshold that makes offences under Section 132(1)(i) CGST Act non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment up to five years. The petitioner had been arrested under Section 69 and was in custody from 26 May 2026.
What tipped the balance
Investigation complete
The complaint (the chargesheet-equivalent in CGST prosecutions) stood filed. The evidentiary record — returns, invoices, portal logs, statements — was already with the department, leaving little that custody could still protect.
Custody served
Nearly four months of incarceration against a maximum sentence of five years. Pre-trial detention that eats into the possible sentence is a recurring reason for release in economic offence cases.
Parity
The proprietor of the firm at the centre of the alleged network had already been granted bail — and the prosecution could not satisfactorily distinguish the accountant's continued detention from the principal's liberty.
The court enlarged the petitioner on bail on a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, rejecting the argument that the scale of the alleged fraud alone warranted continued detention.
The settled approach to economic offence bail
Economic offences are treated as a class apart at the bail stage — deliberate design, public money, systemic harm — and courts say so regularly. But the classification informs, it does not conclude. The operative questions remain those of any bail application: is the accused a flight risk; can he tamper with evidence or witnesses; is custody still serving an investigative purpose; how long has he been inside relative to the maximum sentence; and how are co-accused placed? In GST prosecutions specifically, the evidence is overwhelmingly electronic and documentary, captured on the GSTN portal and in seized records. Once the complaint is filed, the tampering argument thins, and the calculus shifts towards liberty on conditions — typically passport deposit, cooperation with trial, and restraint from contacting witnesses.
Practical notes for the defence
Track the investigation's milestones: the filing of the complaint is the single most consequential event for a bail application in a Section 132 prosecution.
Compile the parity chart — every co-accused, role alleged, and bail status — and put it on record; unexplained differential treatment is a powerful argument.
Quantify custody against the maximum sentence; five years is the ceiling even in the gravest ITC cases.
Offer conditions proactively — appearance, non-interference, travel restrictions — to meet the gravity argument on its own terms.
Relevance in Delhi
Delhi generates a substantial share of the country's fake-ITC prosecutions, with DGGI and state GST authorities regularly opposing bail before the Sessions Courts and the High Court of Delhi on near-identical facts. The framework this order applies — complaint filed, custody served, documentary evidence secured, parity with co-accused — is the working grammar of those hearings, and the order is a current, citable instance of it producing release even where the accused is painted as the scheme's architect.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are GST offences bailable?
It depends on the amount and the clause. Offences under Section 132 CGST Act become non-bailable where the amount of tax evaded or input tax credit wrongly availed exceeds ₹5 crore. Below the thresholds, most offences are bailable. Arrest powers under Section 69 are confined to the serious, non-bailable categories.
What weighs in favour of bail once the complaint is filed?
Completion of the investigation removes the argument that custody is needed to prevent interference with evidence collection. The documentary record — invoices, returns, portal data — stands seized. Combined with the period already served and bail granted to similarly placed co-accused, continued detention becomes progressively harder to justify.
Does the label "mastermind" or "architect" defeat bail?
Not by itself. Courts examine the material, not the epithet. The role alleged is relevant to conditions and to the risk of tampering, but where the evidence is documentary and secured, even an accused described as central to the scheme may be released on stringent terms.
What is the maximum punishment in large fake ITC cases?
Where the amount exceeds ₹5 crore, imprisonment may extend to five years with fine. The comparatively moderate maximum sentence is itself a factor courts weigh when custody during trial threatens to consume a substantial fraction of the possible punishment.