Allahabad High Court

AMIT JOSHIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is not demonstrably connected to the alleged fraud, the offence is bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act, and therefore bail must be granted.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Amit Joshi under Section 483 of the BNS Act, 2023, seeking release from custody while facing charges under IPC sections 318(4), 340(2), 336(3) and 338 for alleged GST fraud. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, had no ownership of the firms involved, and that the prosecution’s case relied solely on CDR records linking his mobile number to the registration of a firm. He further contended that the alleged offence falls under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, which makes it bailable when the amount involved is below Rs 2 crore, and that the GST Act, being a special law, must be invoked before applying penal provisions of the IPC or BNS. The court noted the lack of a direct nexus, the applicant’s clean record, and the bailability under the GST law, and therefore granted bail with standard conditions. The bail was ordered on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and non‑appearance.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, Amit Joshi, is sufficiently linked to the alleged GST fraud to justify denial of bail.
Whether provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly Section 132, render the offence bailable despite the IPC charges.
Whether the BNS Act provisions can be invoked without first invoking the GST Act for a case arising out of alleged GST violations.
Whether the CDR evidence establishes a prima facie case against the applicant.

Legislation cited

BNS Act — s. 483
CGST Act, 2017 — s. 122, 132, 138, 67
Indian Penal Code — s. 318, 336, 338, 340

Subjects

bail
GST fraud
CGST Act
Section 132
IPC
special legislation
CDR evidence
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9192 of 2026

Amit Joshi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajrshi Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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,
BAIL No. 9192 of 2026
2

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
3

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.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
March 25, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…