Default bail under CrPC and GST arrest safeguards were denied where the charge sheet timing and record-based satisfaction defeated the claims.

Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is available only if the accused enforces the right after expiry of the prescribed period and before filing of the charge sheet; where the bail application and charge sheet are filed on the same day, the right is not established. In GST-related allegations involving fake invoicing and substantial revenue loss, arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act is not invalid merely because the authorisation does not reproduce reasons, if the record shows the Commissioner's satisfaction. Alleged non-compliance with arrest safeguards and absence of sanction were treated as insufficient to displace the gravity of the accusations. Bail was rejected, with liberty to pursue compounding if available in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the charge sheet was filed belatedly. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with arrest safeguards and absence of sanction for prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the charge sheet was filed belatedly.

Analysis: The statutory right to default bail arises only if the accused applies for bail after expiry of the prescribed period and before filing of the charge sheet. The decisive factor is whether the indefeasible right was availed of before the final report was filed. On the facts, the application for bail and the filing of the charge sheet occurred on the same day, and the right under the proviso to Section 167(2) was not shown to have been enforced prior to the filing of the charge sheet. The earlier authorities relied upon by the petitioner were treated as inapplicable to this factual situation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to default bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with arrest safeguards and absence of sanction for prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The arrest was considered in the context of a serious economic offence involving alleged fake invoicing and substantial revenue loss. The Court relied on the view that Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confers power to arrest where the Commissioner has reason to believe that an offence under Section 132 has been committed, and that the absence of an express recording of reasons in the authorisation order does not by itself vitiate the arrest if the reasons exist on the record. The Court also treated the alleged non-compliance with the directions in Arnesh Kumar and the complaint regarding sanction as insufficient to override the gravity of the allegations and the loss to the exchequer. The offence was proceeded with as cognizable and non-bailable on the facts before the Court.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail on these grounds.

Final Conclusion: The application for bail was rejected, and the petitioner was left at liberty to pursue compounding before the competent authority if available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to default bail succeeds only if the accused establishes that the right was enforced before the charge sheet was filed, and in serious GST offences, arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not invalid merely because the reasons are not reproduced in the authorisation order, where the record otherwise discloses the Commissioner's satisfaction.

---