Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Amit Bhasin Bail After Completion of GST Investigation

Regular bail after the investigation stage

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to GoMechanic co-founder Amit Bhasin in proceedings involving allegations of fraudulent input tax credit transactions. Justice Sanjay Vashisth found no demonstrated requirement for continued detention after completion of the investigation against him and filing of the complaint. The order concerns the justification for custody at this stage. It does not acquit the petitioner, determine the correctness of the tax allegations or direct the trial court to accept his defence on the evidence.

The allegations remain prosecution claims

The prosecution alleged that companies associated with the business and a network of firms had availed, used or passed on input tax credit without corresponding supplies of goods or services. It relied on statements and documentary material. Those assertions provide the background to the case, rather than findings of guilt in the bail order. The High Court expressly preserved the trial court’s duty to take an independent view. The seriousness of an accusation and the necessity of continued pretrial detention were treated as related but distinct questions.

The complaint had already been filed

The Court recorded that investigation concerning Bhasin was complete and that a complaint had been filed before the competent court on22 September 2026. The Department opposed bail but did not advance a substantial explanation for why further custody was necessary in that position. The judgment also noted the maximum punishment applicable to the alleged offences. Its reasoning therefore depended on the actual stage and record of this prosecution, rather than announcing that every tax investigation must result in bail immediately after a complaint is lodged.

A co-accused’s relief was relevant but not decisive

The petitioner relied on an earlier order granting bail to co-accused Sahil Chandna after his arrest was held illegal. The High Court treated that as a relevant circumstance, while making clear that it did not independently determine Bhasin’s entitlement. This distinction prevents a decision about another person’s arrest from being presented as a finding about the present petitioner. Bail required assessment of the circumstances before this bench, including the completed investigation, filed complaint and absence of a demonstrated need for further custodial interrogation.

The subsequent GST instruction had a limited role

The Court also considered CBIC Instruction02/2026-GST dated 30 October 2026. Its arrest-related paragraph directs central GST field formations against further arrests while recommended legislative changes await implementation. The instruction itself describes this as an interim administrative measure. A recommendation to omit Section 69 and a direction to field officers must not be reported as an already enacted repeal. The judgment specifically states that the later instruction does not, by itself, decide whether Bhasin’s earlier arrest was legal. It was considered alongside the other bail factors.

Release carries conditions and does not end the case

The petitioner must furnish bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The release direction applies if he is not required in another case. He must not threaten or influence prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. These conditions preserve the administration of the pending prosecution while allowing release. The order should consequently be read as a decision about custody, rather than a conclusion that the alleged transactions were genuine or that the Department may no longer pursue the case.

The trial court must assess the evidence independently

The High Court directed that its discussion should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts. The trial court is expected to decide the case independently on the evidence and in accordance with law. The decision illustrates why a bail court examines whether detention still serves a demonstrated purpose after investigation has concluded. Its immediate effect is conditional release; the ultimate liability questions remain unresolved. No subsequent release date, compliance with bond conditions or final trial outcome is established by the material reviewed.

Key directions

• Furnish bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
• Do not threaten or influence prosecution witnesses.
• Trial court to decide independently on the evidence; release remains subject to other lawful custody requirements.