Facts of the Case

The applicant — cause-titled as Shri Bhavesh Kumar Sahni, though the body of the order names the applicant seeking bail as "Raman Kantpal," while the underlying criminal complaint names Bhavik Sahani and Shri Ramakant Pal, both Directors of M/s WLTPE (M/s Yoke Payment India Private Limited); this inconsistency in names appears in the source order itself — sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in complaint case no.173676 of 2026 dated 27.05.2026, filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer, GST Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, alleging offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 134 of the CGST Act and provisions of the BNSS. The company, engaged in providing e-top-up services, allegedly issued fake invoices for a taxable value of Rs. 351.19 crores, fraudulently passing on input tax credit of Rs. 63.21 crores to 18 beneficiary companies without any actual underlying supply. The applicant had been in judicial custody since April 2026; the investigation was complete, cash, gadgets and the e-ledger had been seized, and the complaint had been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether regular bail should be granted to a person accused of orchestrating a large-scale fake-invoicing and fraudulent ITC-passing scheme under the CGST Act once investigation is complete and the complaint has been filed.
  2. Whether continued custody serves any purpose given the economic-offence character of the allegations and the maximum sentence prescribed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The applicant has been in custody since April 2026; the authorities have already seized substantial cash, gadgets and the e-ledger, so the investigation is complete and further custody would serve no purpose.
  • Given the maximum punishment prescribed and the remote possibility of early trial disposal, continued incarceration is unwarranted and bail should be granted on appropriate conditions.

Respondent's Arguments

  • A prima facie case is made out against the applicant for commission of the alleged offences under the CGST Act.
  • The offence is an economic offence and the applicant is a mastermind of the fraud; considering the larger public interest, no case is made out for exercising judicial discretion in favour of bail, and the application should be dismissed.

Court Order/Findings

  • The department has already secured financial stakes and seized computer gadgets and the e-ledger of the company; the applicant has been in custody since April 2026 with no realistic prospect of an early trial, and the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is five years.
  • Since the department's case rests substantially on documentary evidence already in its possession, there is no further need for detention, and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
  • Bail was allowed on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including surrender of passport, no change of residence without permission, cooperation with trial without seeking unnecessary adjournments, and a bar on leaving India without permission.
  • The Court clarified that nothing in the order amounts to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Important Clarification

  • Completion of investigation, filing of the complaint, and the fact that the prosecution's case rests substantially on documentary evidence already seized are significant factors favouring bail even in serious GST fraud/fake-invoicing prosecutions under Sections 132 and 134 of the CGST Act.
  • The prescribed maximum sentence and the unlikelihood of early trial conclusion are weighed against the need for continued pre-trial detention.
  • Bail orders in economic offences under the CGST Act routinely carry stringent conditions (passport surrender, travel restriction, cooperation clause) rather than being unconditional.

Sections Involved

  • Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c), CGST Act, 2017 — criminal offences for issuing invoices without supply of goods/services to fraudulently avail input tax credit.
  • Section 132(6), CGST Act, 2017 — cognizance-related provisions for prosecution of specified offences.
  • Section 134, CGST Act, 2017 — sanction/cognizance requirement for prosecution under the Act.
  • Section 483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — provision under which regular bail was sought (successor to Section 439 CrPC).

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the accused/applicant — regular bail was allowed on conditions, though expressly without any opinion on the merits of the underlying prosecution.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
  • Case No.: R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15066 of 2026
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora
  • Decision Date: 17 July 2026
  • Disposal Nature: Bail application allowed

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.