Written By: Apoorv Agarwal
Case Title: DGGI v. Abhijit Giri
Case No.: Bail Application No. 2165 of 2025
The concept of Bail safeguards personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and rests on the presumption of innocence. Although, Economic Offences are considered serious due to their impact on the economy, the rule of “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception” still applies. The Courts grant Bail by balancing the individual’s liberty with societal interests, guided by the triple test of flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influence.
The present Bail Application arose from allegations against the Applicant namely Abhijit Giri, the Executive Director of Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Bail Application No. 2165 of 2025), for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹383 crores under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act. The applicant was arrested and was in Custody from 04.11.2025 following search and seizure operations conducted by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and remained in judicial custody thereafter.
During the Trail,the Counsel for the Applicant challenged the legality of his arrest on multiple grounds. It was argued that there was non-compliance with Section 35(3) BNSS, absence of a valid DIN in the arrest documents, and failure to meet the higher threshold of “reasons to believe” required under the CGST Act.
Further, it was submitted that the applicant satisfied the triple test; as he had cooperated with the investigation, appeared pursuant to summons, and posed no flight risk. The evidence being largely documentary in nature and already seized, there was no possibility of tampering. It was also argued that liability under Section 137 CGST Act was vicarious and not sufficiently established.
Subsequently,the Counsel for the Respondent opposed the Bail; emphasizing the seriousness of the offence involving massive loss to the public exchequer. It was contended that the applicant played a key role in orchestrating a fraudulent ITC scheme through fake firms. The investigation was stated to be at a crucial stage, requiring custodial interrogation to uncover the full conspiracy.
Furthermore, the Counsel for the Respondent significantly conceded that the investigation could not be completed within the statutory period of 60 days, thereby entitling the applicant to default bail shortly.
However, the Court rejected the technical objections raised by the Applicant, holding that summons under Section 70 CGST Act did not necessitate prior notice under BNSS, and that the DIN requirement stood substantially complied with. It also found that the threshold for arrest under the CGST Act was prima facie satisfied.
On merits, the Court acknowledged the gravity of economic offences but reiterated the primacy of personal liberty. Applying the triple test, it found no likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Crucially, the Court relied on the prosecution’s admission regarding delay in filing the complaint and held that continued custody would serve no meaningful purpose, as the applicant would soon be entitled to statutory bail.
Accordingly, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that denial in such circumstances would amount to “meaningless incarceration.”
