1. Case Overview
This judgment arises from an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC). The applicant, Dheeraj Gupta, was implicated in a large-scale alleged GST fraud involving fake firms, bogus invoices, and wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The FIR invoked Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act, though the substance of allegations squarely fell within the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Allegations by Prosecution
The prosecution alleged that multiple bogus proprietorship firms were created using misused documents of agriculturists. These firms were allegedly used to generate fake GST transactions amounting to approximately Rs.33.80 crores, causing heavy loss to the State exchequer. The applicant was alleged to be part of a syndicate facilitating such transactions.

3. Defence Version and Chronology
The applicant demonstrated a clear chronology showing:
- Continuous salaried employment since 2009.
- Lawful leasing of godown premises.
- GST searches and arrest already conducted in 2021.
- Bail granted earlier in GST proceedings.
- Income Tax and GST proceedings already initiated and pending.
- FIR registered belatedly in 2025 on the same set of facts.

4. Core Legal Issues
A. Whether IPC offences can be invoked when GST Act is a complete code.
B. Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in GST-related economic offences.
C. Whether multiple proceedings amount to double jeopardy and abuse of process.

5. Findings on GST Act as a Complete Code
The Court held that the CGST Act is a special statute providing a complete mechanism for investigation, arrest, prosecution, compounding, and punishment. Reliance was placed on:
- Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (SC)
- Deepak Singhal v. Union of India (MP HC)
- Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer (Karnataka HC)
The Court disapproved the practice of bypassing GST procedures by invoking IPC provisions.

6. Custodial Interrogation Not Required
The Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary because:
- The case is document-based.
- Investigations had already been conducted by GST and Income Tax authorities.
- FIR was lodged much after completion of departmental proceedings.

7. Double Jeopardy and Multiple Proceedings
Considering earlier arrest and proceedings under CGST Act, the Court observed that fresh FIR on the same facts prima facie attracts the principles laid down in:
- T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
- Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI
- Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India

8. Interpretation of Section 132 CGST Act
The Court analysed Section 132 and noted:
- Maximum punishment is five years.
- Many offences are bailable.
- Prosecution requires prior sanction under Section 132(6).
- Compounding is permissible under Section 138.
Hence, arrest should be an exception.

9. Application of Sushila Aggarwal Principles
Applying Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020), the Court considered:
- Nature and gravity of offence.
- Role of the applicant.
- No flight risk.
- No likelihood of tampering.
- Cooperation with investigation.

10. Final Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail holding that:
- Allegations fall predominantly under GST law.
- Custodial interrogation is unwarranted.
- Continued detention would be disproportionate.
- Liberty deserves protection.

11. Bail Conditions
The applicant was directed to furnish:
- Personal bond of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties.
- Cooperation with investigation.
- Live Google Maps location.
- Passport surrender.
- No foreign travel without permission.

12. Legal Significance
This judgment strengthens:
- Protection against parallel criminalisation.
- Anticipatory bail jurisprudence in economic offences.
- The principle that GST Act cannot be bypassed via IPC.

This decision is highly citable in anticipatory bail, quashing petitions, and GST-related criminal litigation.

Link to Download Order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769512316_DHEERAJGUPTAVersusTHESTATEOFMADHYAPRADESH.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.