In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that granting bail is the norm, even in cases involving alleged offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, unless there are extraordinary circumstances justifying denial.
The apex court expressed concern over the denial of bail to Vineet Jain, the appellant, who was charged with offences carrying a maximum punishment of five years. The Supreme Court bench noted that the charges were based solely on documentary evidence and the case was to be tried by a Judicial Magistrate, indicating its relatively lower severity in the legal framework.
Jain had been in judicial custody for nearly seven months, and a charge sheet had already been filed. The court emphasized that the nature of evidence—being documentary—meant minimal risk of tampering or influencing witnesses. Importantly, it was also observed that the appellant had no previous criminal record.
The offences alleged against Jain fall under the following clauses of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act:
- Clause (c): Supplying goods or services without issuing an invoice, with intent to evade tax.
- Clause (f): Issuing invoices without actual supply, leading to wrongful input tax credit or refund claims.
- Clause (h): Fraudulent or willful misstatement to unlawfully obtain input tax credit.
The court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier decision to deny bail, asserting that pre-trial incarceration in such cases should not be the default, particularly when the case doesn’t involve violence or threat to public safety.
This landmark judgment reinforces the principle that liberty should not be curtailed arbitrarily, and bail must be denied only in genuinely exceptional situations.
Case: Vineet Jain vs. Union of India | Supreme Court of India