Statutory arrest and filed complaint defeat habeas corpus claim where custody is not shown unlawful.

Arrest under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the filing of a complaint under Section 132 meant the detenue's custody could not be treated as unlawful for habeas corpus purposes. The note also records that the default bail application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been dismissed and the challenge to that order was withdrawn. On that footing, no interference with the refusal of default bail was warranted, and relief against continued custody was unavailable absent illegal confinement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detenue's arrest and continued custody under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were illegal so as to warrant a writ of habeas corpus, and whether the order rejecting default bail required interference.

Analysis: The detenue had been arrested under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and a complaint for offence punishable under Section 132 of that Act had already been filed before the competent Magistrate. The record also showed that the application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been dismissed, and the challenge to that order had been withdrawn earlier. In these circumstances, the custody could not be treated as illegal, and no ground was made out to interfere with the order refusing default bail.

Conclusion: The petition for habeas corpus failed, and the order declining default bail was not set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where arrest is made under the statutory power and prosecution has already been set in motion by filing of a complaint, continued judicial custody cannot be branded illegal merely because default bail is sought, and habeas corpus relief is unavailable absent unlawful confinement.

---