In a significant order, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan declined to brand as “illegal” the arrest of Chinese national Alice Li (Li Tengli), accused in a ₹9-crore GST case by the CGST Anti-Evasion Wing, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Instead, the Court directed Li’s husband, Xu Xunfu—the petitioner before it—to move a bail application before the trial court, which should decide the plea on its own merits. Confronted with an Article 32 petition, the Bench essentially held that this was not the forum to adjudicate the legality of the arrest at this stage and urged the petitioner to seek bail expeditiously.
What the Court did—and didn’t—say
The order neither pronounces on guilt nor validates the investigative steps taken so far. It simply declines to invoke Article 32—a constitutional remedy reserved for clear violations of fundamental rights—to short-circuit the criminal process. The Bench underlined that any bail application must be considered promptly and strictly in line with settled principles, and that no adverse inference should be drawn from the Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the writ.
The case in brief
The CGST Anti-Evasion Wing, Gautam Buddh Nagar, is investigating M/s Tentech LED Display Pvt. Ltd. for alleged misclassification and under-invoicing of video display units. On August 26, 2025, company director Vinay Kumar and Alice Li (aka Li Tengli), a Chinese national, were arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 and remanded to judicial custody by a Meerut court.
The legal backdrop: Section 69 and the ₹5-crore threshold
Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to authorise arrests where there are “reasons to believe” that specified offences under Section 132 have been committed and the amount involved exceeds ₹5 crore. Such offences are cognisable and non-bailable and carry a potential sentence of up to five years.
The bail bid—and the opposition
Within days of the Supreme Court’s order, a bail application was filed on Li’s behalf, asserting that she has no criminal history and is not a habitual offender. Her counsel argued that she is innocent, falsely implicated due to personal animus, has not evaded tax, and was not served a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC. On humanitarian grounds, they noted she has been in custody since August 27, 2025 and has a three-year-old child.
Opposing bail, Senior Public Prosecutor Lakshay Kumar Singh contended that the alleged conduct is serious and injurious to the national economy. The prosecution also described Li as a habitual offender and, given her foreign nationality, argued that there is a risk of flight or tampering with evidence if released.
The trial court’s decision
After hearing both sides, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Meerut) declined bail, noting that the alleged offence is non-bailable and, considering its gravity, release was not warranted at this stage. Even the bail of co-accused Vinay Kumar has been previously rejected by the court.
