The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Narender Kumar, accused in an alleged ₹11.5 crore fake GST input tax credit (ITC) scam. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, observed that since the investigation was complete and the evidence largely documentary, continued custody of the accused was not justified.
Background
Narender Kumar, a resident of Palam Colony, was arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi Zonal Unit on June 4, 2025, under Section 132(1)(c)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
He alleged that his arrest took place without any summons or prior notice, in violation of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014). His lawyers claimed he was made to sign documents under coercion and was not given the arrest memo for nearly 14 hours after detention.
The DGGI accused Kumar and others of creating fake firms to fraudulently generate ITC worth ₹11.5 crore without actual movement of goods. According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly formed bogus companies using stolen KYC documents, created dummy proprietors, and manipulated GST returns to claim fraudulent refunds.
Court’s Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the prosecution complaint and charge sheet had already been filed, and the investigation was over. The Court emphasized that the evidence in such cases is primarily documentary and electronic, leaving little chance for tampering.
“The applicant has no prior criminal record, and there is no likelihood of influencing official witnesses,” the judge remarked. She cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vineet Jain v. Union of India (2025) and Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India (2023), which laid down that bail should normally be granted in CGST cases unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
In Vineet Jain, the apex court had observed, “We are surprised that in a case like this, the appellant was denied bail despite no antecedents and the matter being based on documentary evidence.”
Justice Krishna reiterated this principle, adding that since Kumar had already spent more than two months in custody and the complaint was on record, his continued detention would serve no purpose.
Defense Claims and Health Concerns
Kumar’s counsel, Mr. Anubhav Singh, contended that the entire case rested on coerced confessions under Section 70 of the CGST Act. He further argued that the accused was assaulted during interrogation and forced to sign English statements he could not read. The defense highlighted that Kumar suffers from hypertension and diabetes, while his mother and son require continuous medical care costing around ₹35,000 a month.
The petition also detailed the family’s financial distress, claiming that his son’s school fees had not been paid since May.
Prosecution’s Argument
Opposing the bail plea, Ms. Vertika Sharma, counsel for the DGGI, maintained that Kumar was part of a wider fraud involving fake GST invoices and dummy accounts. The main accused, Kartik Sikka alias Sharad Sikka, remains absconding, she said.
However, the Court was not convinced by the department’s argument that one absconding person justified continued detention of another, observing that such reasoning was “untenable once the investigation against the applicant is complete.”
After hearing both sides, the Court granted regular bail to Narender Kumar. Justice Krishna ruled:
“There exist no extraordinary circumstances to deny the bail to the Applicant. The Complaint has already been filed, and evidence is documentary in nature.”
The Court directed that Kumar be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the same amount. He was ordered not to contact witnesses, tamper with evidence, or change his address without informing the investigating officer or trial court.
The bail application was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Narender Kumar vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi Zonal Unit
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3065/2025