The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Meerut has rejected the bail application of three accused allegedly involved in a massive Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud involving fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims and fraudulent export refunds.
The accused—Abhishek Jain, Samyak Jain, and Ankur Jain—were arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Meerut Zonal Unit, under multiple provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, including Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (l), and (i), which deal with serious tax evasion offences.
According to the prosecution, the accused masterminded a sophisticated network of 37 shell companies used to generate and pass on fraudulent ITC without any actual supply of goods or services. The investigation revealed that fake invoices were issued to inflate transactions, resulting in fraudulent ITC of ₹276.16 crore on a taxable value exceeding ₹2,156 crore.
Additionally, the accused allegedly claimed fraudulent export refunds amounting to ₹17.53 crore through dummy firms, taking the total estimated loss to the government exchequer to ₹293.68 crore.
Search operations conducted at their premises led to the seizure of incriminating materials, including digital devices, SIM cards, debit/credit cards, and bank documents linked to mule accounts. Investigators also recovered Excel sheets containing sensitive financial data such as net banking credentials and OTP-linked mobile numbers, indicating full operational control over the shell entities.
The prosecution emphasized that GST returns for several shell entities were filed using internet connections and devices linked directly to the residences of the accused. Further, funds received as refunds were allegedly routed through intermediary accounts and hawala channels.
Statements recorded during the investigation reportedly show that the accused received commissions ranging from 1% to 1.5% for facilitating fake ITC transactions and maintained detailed records of such earnings.
The defence argued that the accused were falsely implicated, that their statements were obtained under coercion, and that no independent evidence existed linking them to the alleged fraud. It was also contended that proper arrest procedures were not followed and that no direct financial benefit accrued to the accused.
However, the court found these arguments unconvincing at this stage, noting the presence of substantial documentary and digital evidence linking the accused to the fraudulent operations.
The court underscored the seriousness of economic offences, observing that such crimes have far-reaching implications on the country’s financial health. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court of India, it reiterated that offences involving large-scale public fund losses require strict scrutiny in bail matters.
The judge noted that releasing the accused at this stage could lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, especially since the investigation is still ongoing.
Considering the gravity of the offence, the scale of the fraud, and the evidence on record, the court held that it would not be appropriate to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application of all three accused was rejected.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhishek Jain Versus Union of India
Citation: JURISHOUR-509-HC-2026(Ker)
Case No.: First Bail application No. 868 of 2026
Date: 17/03/2026
Counsel For Respondent: SPP Lakshya Kumar Singh
