Court dismisses Habeas Corpus petition under CGST Act, upholds denial of default bail application.

The court dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition seeking the release of the detenue under the CGST Act. The court found that there was no illegal confinement of the detenue and upheld the dismissal of the default bail application, concluding that it could not be set aside in the current proceedings. The petition was deemed to lack merit and was consequently dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Habeas Corpus petition seeking release of detenue under CGST Act
2. Validity of default bail application dismissal

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the release of the detenue, Sahil Garg, who was arrested under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that despite the expiry of 60 days from the first remand, Sahil Garg had not been released as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner also challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the default bail application and ordering the transfer of the detenue to another court. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid and against the law. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the issue as a matter of personal liberty and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondent, on the other hand, presented evidence of alleged fraudulent activities by Sahil Garg, involving the creation of fictitious firms and fraudulent ITC claims amounting to over Rs. 115 crore. The respondent argued that Sahil Garg's arrest was lawful, considering the seriousness of the offense under the CGST Act.

2. The court examined the submissions from both parties and noted that Sahil Garg was arrested under the CGST Act and a complaint had been filed against him for offenses under Section 132 of the Act. The court observed that the application for default bail filed by Sahil Garg had been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, and a revision against this decision was withdrawn from the Additional Sessions Judge's court. The court also mentioned a previous petition by the petitioner with a similar prayer for release, which was withdrawn earlier. Considering these facts, the court concluded that there was no illegal confinement of the detenue, and the dismissal of the default bail application could not be set aside in the current proceedings. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petition and ordered its dismissal.

---