Anticipatory bail granted in fake GST billing case as no custodial investigation was required and evidence was documentary in nature

Case Summary

Case Title: Raj Jaiswal v. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence
Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Petition Number: A.B.A. No. 8095 of 2024
Judgment Date: 18 July 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017; Sections 34, 120B, 174, 175, 201, 203, 204, 205, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Sections 482 & 484 BNSS, 2023
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (fake firms, fraudulent ITC claims)

Facts (Para 3–4)

The petitioner, Raaj Jaiswal, was accused of creating fake firms in the names of his employees to issue fraudulent GST invoices. Through such invoices, ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) was passed on, causing financial loss to the State. A prosecution report (akin to a chargesheet) was already filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), and cognizance had been taken by the trial court.

Questions before the Court

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when:

1. Investigation is already complete and prosecution report has been filed.

2. All evidence is documentary and already in the possession of the prosecution.

3. The petitioner was never arrested during investigation and no custodial interrogation is required.

Observations (Para 5–8)

The Court observed that during the entire investigation, the petitioner was never taken into custody, nor was any warrant of arrest sought. Since all evidence was documentary in nature and already secured by DGGI, there was no scope of tampering. The Court also noted that a co-accused had been granted regular bail earlier. Thus, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Judgment (Para 9)

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks. Upon surrender or arrest, he would be released on bail with conditions:

• Furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties.

• One surety must be a close relative, the other a Jharkhand resident with landed property.

• The petitioner must appear before the trial court as required.
  The Court further directed that the trial court frame charges expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Table of Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines

For businesses, this case underscores that GST fraud through fake billing is treated seriously. However, when evidence is documentary and investigation is complete, courts may allow anticipatory bail to ensure due process, provided the accused cooperates with trial.

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”