The Rajasthan High Court has rejected the bail application of Ankit Bansal, who is accused in a ₹704 crore GST evasion scam involving dummy firms and fake invoices.
The case was heard by Justice Anand Sharma, who refused to grant bail due to several serious concerns raised by the State. These included Bansal’s concealed past criminal record, his attempt to escape custody, and the massive scale of the financial fraud.
“Where the amount involved runs into hundreds of crores and has serious implications over the economic fabric of the country, it cannot be said to be a routine matter.”
Ankit Bansal was charged under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 for allegedly creating and using 353 fake or non-existent firms to generate fictitious invoices, falsely claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC), and thereby causing massive loss to the public exchequer.
His legal team argued that the arrest was illegal, violated his constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22, and that since the case relied only on documents, custodial interrogation was not necessary. They also pointed to parity with co-accused Rajesh Goyal, who had already been granted bail.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Flags 'Alarming' Local Train Deaths, Suggests Automatic Doors for Mumbai Locals
However, the court did not accept these arguments. The State’s counsel highlighted that Bansal had hidden a previous FIR filed by Cyber Crime Cell in 2021, which demonstrated his criminal antecedents.
Moreover, it was revealed that during a medical visit to SMS Hospital, Bansal used his influence and resources to try escaping custody, by colluding with police guards and family members.
“There are clear and manifest antecedents against the petitioner (which have been suppressed)... and the magnitude of allegations against him is quite higher, which is crossing more than 700 Crores.”
The High Court emphasized that in cases of economic offences, the accused often possess resources to manipulate evidence or evade legal processes, making continued custody necessary.
The Court also stressed that economic offences are not ordinary crimes, but deliberate acts aimed at personal profit, which could severely affect public trust in the financial and legal systems.
“The possibility of his absconding and influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.”
In light of these facts, the Court dismissed the bail plea, stating that the severity of the offence, suppression of facts, and escape attempt all indicated that judicial custody must continue.
Case Title: Ankit Bansal v Union of India.
