Court determines lack of jurisdiction in granting bail without Department's notice, issues notice for thorough legal consideration.

The Court disposed of the application challenging the order granting anticipatory bail without notice to the Department. The Court found that the order granting bail lacked jurisdiction and should have been heard by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts in Delhi. The Court considered the ongoing investigation into potential tax evasion by the respondent and the jurisdictional issues, ultimately issuing notice to the respondents for a thorough consideration of the legal aspects involved.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order granting anticipatory bail without notice to the Department, Jurisdiction of the Court to grant anticipatory bail, Ignoring merits of the case, Seizures made by the department indicating tax evasion, Continuing investigation, Jurisdiction of Delhi Courts to grant anticipatory bail.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail without notice to the Department. The petitioner argues that the Court granting bail lacked jurisdiction, as the application should have been heard by either the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts in New Delhi. The petitioner highlights that the bail was granted despite various seizures indicating potential tax evasion by the respondent. The ongoing investigation suggests a significant amount of tax may need to be recovered. Furthermore, the petitioner contests the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts to grant anticipatory bail, given that the respondent is from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and the cause of action also arose there.

The Court issued notice to the respondents through all modes, including email, with a returnable date of 20.10.2020. The hearing was conducted via video conferencing, and an exemption was allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application challenging the order granting anticipatory bail was disposed of during the proceedings. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, presented the arguments, while there was no representation from the respondent's side. The judgment reflects a detailed analysis of the jurisdictional issues surrounding the grant of anticipatory bail and the ongoing investigation into potential tax evasion by the respondent. The Court's decision to issue notice to the respondents indicates a thorough consideration of the legal aspects involved in the case.

---