Harsh v. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence, Cr Building And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 HARSH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, CR BUILDING AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and grant the concession of Regular Bail to the Petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with File No. INT/30/2025-GROUP-E O/0 ADG-DGGI-ZUCHANDIGARH (Annexure P-5) dated 09.01.2026 of Directorate General of GST Intelligence and the subsequent Complaint No. 59/2026 dated 05.03.2026, filed by the Respondents before the Ld. Trial Court, Panchkula (annexed herewith as Annexure P-14), for the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) and 132(5) of the Central GST Act, 2017 read with Section 20(xv) of the Integrated GST Act, 2017.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has committed, or caused to be committed, offences relating to the issuance of fake invoices/bills without any actual supply of goods or services and has retained the benefits arising therefrom. It is alleged that such invoices were issued in the names of as many as six firms, which were found to be non-existent or non-functional

-2during the course of search proceedings. The prosecution further alleges that, by adopting the aforesaid modus operandi, ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to several crores of rupees was wrongfully availed, utilized, and passed on to other entities, thereby causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. The alleged acts are stated to have constituted a grave economic offence.

3.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is an individual who was working under one Mr. Sachin Jain, an accountant in Panipat and the alleged network of business was being run by other persons not by the petitioner. He further submits that the case is rests upon documentary evidence. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused namely Annu Jain has already been granted concession of regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.05.2026 in CRM-M-21695-2026. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.01.2026 and, therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Naman Jain, Senior Standing Counsel, DGGI with Ms. Vaishali Jain, Advocate and Mr. Divyam, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of DGGI and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that during investigation, a money trail has been duly established with regard to receipts of proceeds of crime by the petitioner in his bank accounts. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is

-3in custody for the last 04 months and 10 days. He further submits that the petitioner in involved in another FIR at Panipat registered by the private complainant.

6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 10 days; co-acused has already been granted concession of regular bail coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 22.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No