HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9192 of 2026 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the records. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 418 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 340 (2), 338, 336 (3) BNS, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below w2as rejected by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Meerut, vide order dated 24.2.2026 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 22.1.2026. Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel while pressing the bail plea of the applicant vehemently contends that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was lodged nominating one Kunal with the allegation that the accused fraudulently obtained GST Registration No. 09EYCPK7562P1ZK in the name of M/s Bhagwati Enterprises by using his PAN card and other requisite documents. No business was found to have been transacted and no physical existence of the firm was found at the declared place of business owing to which the registration of the firm was suspended. The FIR further alleged that during the months of February and March of financial year 2024-2025, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajrshi Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amit Joshi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the accused Kunal passed on fake IGST by issuing bogus invoices amounting to Rs.37,32,680/- for February, 2025 and Rs.86,26,122/- for March, 2025 in the name of M/s Jai Ganesh Enterprises a Delhi based firm bearing GST No. 07GMRPA2873K1ZK. Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the entire allegations in the FIR are against one Kunal and the applicant is not named therein. The applicant is neither the owner/proprietor of the firms M/s Bhagwati Enterprises or M/s Ganesh Enterprises and has nothing to do with the said firms. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish any nexus between the applicant and proprietors of the two firms. He, however, contends that the complicity of the applicant is sought to be established from CDR details of Mobile No. 98183-15375 which belongs to the applicant and is stated to have been used at the time of registration of the firm M/s Bhagwati Enterprises. Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has next argued that admittedly the applicant is not being prosecuted under any of the provisions of the GST Act. The GST Act, 2017 is a complete code in itself which provides the procedure to be adopted by GST authorities, penalties in case of breach of provisions of GST Act and punishment for offence committed under the GST Act. He has invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 67, 122, 132 of the GST Act in this regard. It is argued that GST Act being a Special Act, the provisions of IPC or the BNS cannot be invoked without invoking the provisions of the GST Act. It is argued that the applicant is not being prosecuted under the GST Act and as such, the GST Authorities cannot bypass the procedure prescribed under the GST Act for launching prosecution by merely invoking penal provisions under the BNS. It is further argued that even if all the allegations are accepted, the case would fall under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 wherein it is clearly provided that if the amount involved is less than 02 crores (as in the present case), then the same is bailable and punishable up to one year as per Section 132 (1)(iii) and is compoundable under Section 138 of the CGST Act, 2017. Admittedly, as on date, no proceedings under the CGST Act, 2017 have been initiated against the applicant. Had that been so, the applicant would have got an opportunity to contest the proceedings or even apply for compounding BAIL No. 9192 of 2026 2 under Section 138 of the Act. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has clean antecedents with no other criminal history. He is not a flight risk and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and abide by the terms of bail. Hence, bail is prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the legal submissions raised by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Amit Joshi, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. March 25, 2026 Ravi Prakash BAIL No. 9192 of 2026 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad