The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an Swatantra Kumar, accused allegedly linked to a major GST fraud case, observing that the principal accused persons were already named in the FIR and that the applicant appeared to have been implicated mainly on the basis of his alleged confessional statement and his employment under a co-accused. 

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain has observed that  the “principal accused” in the matter appeared to be the co-accused persons named in the FIR, namely Arpit Sharma and Dilshad Malik. The Court further noted that the applicant appeared to have been implicated on the basis of his alleged confessional statement before police and because he was an employee of one of the co-accused persons.

According to the prosecution, the matter involved a huge GST fraud allegedly committed through fake firms. Counsel for the applicant argued before the Court that the applicant was not named in the FIR and was later implicated during investigation on the basis of information allegedly supplied by a police informer. It was further submitted that when the applicant and five others were arrested, the prosecution relied upon their alleged confessional statements and recovery of one mobile phone and ₹500 from the applicant’s possession. 

The defence contended that co-accused Arpit Sharma was the principal accused who allegedly committed the GST fraud through fake firms along with another co-accused, Dilshad Malik. It was specifically argued that the applicant was merely an employee of co-accused Dilshad Malik and that mere employment could not automatically establish involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. 

The applicant also informed the Court that investigation against him had already been completed and a chargesheet had been filed. Additionally, it was pointed out that he had no criminal history and had remained in jail since December 27, 2025, for more than four months. 

Opposing the bail plea, the State argued that the matter involved a huge GST fraud. However, the Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the factual submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. 

The Court also took into account that the investigation against the applicant had been completed, chargesheet had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and he had spent over four months in custody. 

Considering these facts and circumstances, the High Court held that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 

The Court directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including appearance before the trial court, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, and refraining from criminal activities. The Court also clarified that the observations made in the bail order would not affect the merits of the trial proceedings. 

Case Details

Case Title: Swatantra Kumar @ Mukesh Versus State of UP

Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 13635 Of 2026

Date: 01/05/2026

Counsel For Petitioner: Ankit Tripathi, Ravi Prakash Tripathi, Santosh Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel For Respondent: GA

Read More: DGFT Restricts Export of High-Grade Baryte; Grade CDW Continues Under Free Export Category