" Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 12334 of 2025 Pramod Kumar Nanda …. Petitioner (s) Mr. Bidyalok Mohapatra, Adv. -versus- Union Of India …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Jnyanananda Panda, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 03. DATE OF HEARING: 23.12.2025 DATE OF ORDER: 22.01.2026 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections Complaint lodged by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Rourkela Zonal Unit 18.10.2025 2(C)CC/35/ 2025 of the court of A.C.J.M., Rourkela Sections 16(2), 7, 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is an accused in 2(C) C.C. No. 35 of 2025 arising out of a complaint filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISS HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jan-2026 16:45:10 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Intelligence (DGGI), Rourkela Zonal Unit, for alleged offences under Sections 16(2), 7, 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. 4. The prosecution case is that intelligence developed through GSTN data analytics, BIFA portal and e-way bill systems revealed a network of newly registered, allegedly non-existent firms involved in fake invoicing of cement and steel and fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods. The petitioner was arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act in July 2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet was filed on 16.07.2025. Earlier bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Judge on the ground of prematurity and subsequently by the learned Addl. CJM, Rourkela on 27.10.2025 primarily considering the gravity of the offence and the alleged quantum of fraud of about ₹15 crores. 5. The petitioner contends that continued incarceration after completion of investigation is unjustified and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is urged that mere gravity or magnitude of an economic offence cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail once investigation is complete and all relevant documents have been seized. The prosecution case rests largely on electronic data, third-party records and statements of co-accused, the veracity of which can be tested only at trial. The petitioner asserts full cooperation during investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, permanent residence with deep social roots, and Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISS HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jan-2026 16:45:10 Signature Not Verified Page 3 no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. It is further alleged that the arrest authorization and sanction under Section 69 were issued without due application of mind, no notices under Sections 130 or 142 were served, and no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner. 6. The Union of India opposes the bail application contending that the offence is non-bailable, grave and involves large-scale economic fraud adversely affecting public interest and the economy. It is asserted that the petitioner was the proprietor and active controller of M/s. Mahavir Construction and personally operated multiple bogus entities to fraudulently avail and utilize ineligible ITC of approximately ₹15 crores through fake invoices without supply of goods. The prosecution relies on GSTN records, bank KYC, e-way bills, digital invoices, WhatsApp chats and financial trails to establish culpability. It is further contended that lawful search under Section 67(2) was conducted, the petitioner absconded during search, incriminating electronic devices were recovered, and corroborative statements of suppliers and transporters have been recorded. Filing of charge-sheet does not automatically entitle the accused to bail, as custodial detention is necessary to prevent tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. 7. It is well settled that in cases involving large-scale economic and financial fraud, the Court is required to adopt a cautious, careful and guarded approach while considering an application for bail. Economic offences, particularly those involving systematic tax evasion, creation of Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISS HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jan-2026 16:45:10 Signature Not Verified Page 4 bogus entities, fabrication of documents and fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, are not confined to individual wrongdoing but have serious ramifications on public revenue and the economic health of the State. 8. Highlighting the gravity of economic offences, the Supreme Court remarked in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitmalji Porwal and Anr1 as follows: “5...The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even- handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.” 9. In view of these compelling observations, it is abundantly clear that a different approach must be adopted in addressing offences of this nature. Hence, in this regard, it would be prudent to also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI2: “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and 1 1987 AIR 1321. 2 AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 1933. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISS HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jan-2026 16:45:10 Signature Not Verified Page 5 involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” 10. In the present case, the allegations disclose a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in a structured and pre-meditated economic offence involving the creation and operation of multiple non-existent entities, issuance of fake invoices and fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit to the tune of approximately ₹15 crores. The material collected by the investigating agency, including GSTN data analytics, e-way bill records, banking and KYC documents, electronic devices and digital communications, indicates that the offence was not an isolated or technical infraction but a well-planned scheme causing substantial loss to public revenue. The manner of commission, the scale of the alleged fraud and the organised nature of the transactions bring the case squarely within the category of grave economic offences which, as held by the Supreme Court, stand on a distinct footing for the purpose of bail. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISS HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jan-2026 16:45:10 Signature Not Verified Page 6 11. Further, the petitioner is alleged to have exercised effective control over the business entity and its operations, and the prosecution has asserted recovery of incriminating electronic material and corroborative statements linking him to the fraudulent transactions. The apprehension expressed by the State that release on bail may enable the petitioner to influence witnesses or tamper with digital and documentary evidence cannot be said to be unfounded, particularly in cases involving financial trails, electronic records and interconnected actors. 12. Balancing the right to personal liberty with the larger public interest and the serious impact of the alleged offence on the economy, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not warrant interference with the impugned order rejecting bail, at this stage. 13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi ) Judge Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISS HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jan-2026 16:45:10 Signature Not Verified "