2021 (1) TMI 217 - HC - GST

Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions: Balancing Personal Liberty and Investigation

Nitin Verma Versus State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Verma Versus State of U.P. and Another - [2021] 86 G S.T.R. 6 (All), 2021 (49) G. S. T. L. 357 (All.) Issues Involved:1. Grant of anticipatory bail.2. Applicant's apprehension of arrest.3. Allegations of GST evasion.4. Legal precedents and judicial pronouncements.5. Conditions for granting anticipatory bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail:The applicant sought anticipatory bail in response to a summon/notice dated 30.01.2020 issued by the Superintendent (A.E.) C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Agra under Section 70 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The applicant expressed readiness to cooperate with the inquiry but feared arrest and detention. The court acknowledged the applicant's willingness to furnish reliable sureties if granted anticipatory bail.2. Applicant's Apprehension of Arrest:The applicant was apprehensive about being detained and sent to jail upon appearing before the Proper Officer. The applicant's counsel argued that the apprehension of arrest was covered under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment under Section 132(1)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act is five years. The applicant claimed false implication due to business rivalry and alleged recovery of bogus invoices.3. Allegations of GST Evasion:The C.G.S.T. Department opposed the anticipatory bail, citing GST evasion of more than Rs. 100 crores, a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 132(1)(i) of the C.G.S.T. Act. Incriminating documents were recovered from the applicant’s premises, and the applicant was accused of being the mastermind behind the fraud involving 111 fake firms and 373 bogus invoices. The department argued that the applicant's arrest was necessary to prevent manipulation of evidence.4. Legal Precedents and Judicial Pronouncements:The court considered various judicial pronouncements, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Akhil Krishan Maggu & Anr. vs. Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors., which directed that inquiry against the petitioners would continue without taking them into custody without prior court approval. The court also referred to the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat, where interim stay of arrest was granted. The court examined the Delhi High Court's judgment in Make My Trip vs. Union of India, emphasizing that the power of arrest should be exercised with great circumspection and only after following proper procedures.5. Conditions for Granting Anticipatory Bail:The court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and was not a habitual offender. The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and stated that arrest should not be necessary if the applicant cooperates with the inquiry. The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant for six weeks or until the inquiry is concluded, on the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount. Conditions included making himself available for interrogation, not making any inducement, not leaving India without permission, and depositing his passport if he had one. The court also allowed the Proper Officer to file an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail if unforeseen circumstances arise.Conclusion:The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the inquiry and prevent any manipulation of evidence. The court emphasized the need to balance the protection of personal liberty with the requirements of a fair and thorough investigation.