Is Parity Enough for Anticipatory Bail in GST Fraud? Jharkhand High Court Clarifies in ₹55 Crore Matter

Case: Panchanan Sardar vs DGGI
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026:JHHC:3138
Date: 05 February 2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

What Was This Case About?

This was an anticipatory bail application filed before the Jharkhand High Court in a major GST fraud case involving approximately ₹55.66 crores.

The petitioner, Panchanan Sardar, feared arrest in connection with alleged offences under:

• Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017

• Section 20 of the IGST Act

• Various serious provisions of the Indian Penal Code including cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and related offences

The matter is pending before the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Jamshedpur.

Background of the Petitioner

• Proprietor of M/s Jai Bhole Enterprises

• Business dealing in iron, steel products, and scrap

• GST registered dealer

• Claimed regular filing of GST returns

The petitioner presented himself as a genuine businessman with lawful registration.

Allegations in the Case

According to the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI):

• Fake or bogus companies were created.

• Fraudulent GST transactions were carried out.

• The Government suffered a revenue loss of approximately ₹55.66 crores.

• The petitioner was allegedly instrumental in creating a round chain of shell firms.

• He avoided investigation and remained absconding.

The case was treated as a serious economic offence involving large-scale tax evasion and misuse of the GST framework.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on the following grounds:

1. He is a legitimate GST-registered businessman.

2. The alleged fraud was carried out by co-accused Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal, who misused his identity.

3. Co-accused had already been granted bail:

   • Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal was granted regular bail.

   • Raaj Jaiswal was granted anticipatory bail.

4. Since similarly placed accused had received bail, he should be granted bail on the principle of parity.

5. The offence report had already been filed and cognizance taken by the trial court.

In essence, the petitioner argued that equal treatment should be given to him.

DGGI’s Opposition

The prosecution strongly opposed anticipatory bail and raised the following points:

Non-Cooperation

• Multiple summons were issued to the petitioner.

• He never appeared before the authorities.

Dates of summons included:

• 26.10.2023

• 27.10.2023

• 06.12.2023

• 11.03.2024

• 28.03.2024

Alleged Evasion

• On 26.10.2023, when officers visited the premises of M/s Kedarnath Trexim Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner was present.

• He allegedly escaped from another gate to avoid questioning.

No Genuine Business Activity

• Landowners confirmed that no office, machinery, or commercial activity existed at the registered addresses.

• The registered places of business were allegedly non-functional.

Absconding Conduct

• A missing report was filed by family members during this period.

• This was cited as further indication of deliberate evasion.

The prosecution argued that the principle of parity did not apply because the co-accused had cooperated, whereas the petitioner had not.

Also read our article : https://www.statvixadvisors.com/section-197-certificates-cannot-be-denied-without-rule-28aa-analysis-delhi-high-court

Court’s Observations

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi examined:

• The seriousness of the alleged ₹55.66 crore GST fraud.

• The petitioner’s conduct during investigation.

• The difference in behaviour between the petitioner and co-accused.

Key observations:

• Co-accused were granted bail because they cooperated with the investigation.

• The petitioner ignored repeated summons.

• He allegedly escaped during inspection.

• He remained absconding.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court principle—where bail may be granted after filing of charge-sheet if the accused cooperated—does not apply where the accused has not cooperated and is evading investigation.

The Court found that the petitioner’s conduct distinguished his case from that of the co-accused.

Final Decision

The High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail.

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Legal Takeaways

1. Anticipatory bail in GST fraud cases involving large public revenue loss is examined strictly.

2. The principle of parity in bail matters is not automatic; it depends on cooperation and role.

3. Non-cooperation and absconding conduct significantly weaken bail claims.

4. In serious economic offences, courts prioritize the integrity of investigation over individual liberty claims at the anticipatory stage.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Why did the Jharkhand High Court reject anticipatory bail in the ₹55 crore GST fraud case?

The High Court rejected anticipatory bail because the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation. Despite multiple summons, he failed to appear before authorities and was alleged to have escaped during inspection. The Court held that non-cooperation and absconding conduct weighed heavily against granting bail in such a serious economic offence involving ₹55.66 crores of public money.

2. What were the charges under the GST Act in this case?

The case involved alleged offences under:

• Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 (punishment for certain GST offences including tax evasion and fraudulent ITC claims)

• Section 20 of the IGST Act

• Various IPC sections including cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust

These provisions apply in cases involving fake GST firms and fraudulent tax transactions.

3. What is anticipatory bail in GST fraud cases?

Anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal protection granted under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now BNSS equivalent). It protects a person from being arrested in anticipation of arrest.

However, in serious economic offences like large-scale GST fraud, courts carefully examine:

• The role of the accused

• The amount involved

• Cooperation with investigation

• Risk of tampering with evidence

In this case, the Court found that the accused did not deserve such protection.

4. What is the principle of parity in bail matters?

The principle of parity means that if one accused is granted bail, similarly placed co-accused may also seek bail on the same grounds.

However, parity is not automatic. Courts examine:

• Whether the roles are similar

• Whether the accused cooperated

• Whether circumstances are identical

In this case, co-accused were granted bail because they cooperated. The petitioner did not cooperate, so parity did not apply.

5. How important is cooperation during GST investigation?

Cooperation is extremely important in GST intelligence investigations. Courts often consider:

• Whether summons were obeyed

• Whether the accused appeared for questioning

• Whether documents were produced

• Whether there was any attempt to evade authorities

In this case, repeated non-appearance and alleged evasion significantly influenced the Court’s decision to reject anticipatory bail.

6. Does filing of complaint or charge-sheet guarantee bail?

No. While courts sometimes grant bail after filing of complaint or charge-sheet if the accused has cooperated and was not arrested earlier, this is not a universal rule.

The High Court clarified that such protection applies only when the accused has shown cooperation. Since the petitioner was absconding, that principle did not apply.

7. Are courts stricter in economic offences like GST fraud?

Yes. Courts generally adopt a stricter approach in economic offences involving:

• Large amounts of public revenue

• Organized fraudulent transactions

• Fake or shell companies

• Tax evasion affecting government funds

The judiciary considers economic offences as serious crimes because they impact public finance and governance.

8. What message does this judgment send regarding GST fraud cases?

The judgment sends a clear message: anticipatory bail is not a shield for those who evade investigation in serious tax fraud cases.

If an accused:

• Avoids summons

• Escapes questioning

• Remains absconding

Courts are unlikely to grant pre-arrest protection, especially in cases involving crores of rupees in alleged GST evasion.

9. Can anticipatory bail be granted in GST evasion cases?

Yes, anticipatory bail can be granted in GST evasion cases. However, it depends on:

• Cooperation with authorities

• Nature of allegations

• Amount involved

• Role of the accused

• Risk of tampering with evidence

Each case is decided on its own facts. In this particular case, the Court found strong reasons to deny bail.

Have query and need a consultation with tax expert?

We provide consultation to resolve your queries in the Area of International Tax, Indian Income Tax, Goods and Service Tax Act, though call with our Tax Expert CA Shilpa Arora.