Pre-arrest bail granted for tax evasion case involving supply of goods without invoices under Section 438 CrPC

The DSC granted pre-arrest bail to an applicant charged with supplying goods without invoices to evade tax. The court held that Section 438 CrPC does not restrict anticipatory bail applications to courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence was committed. Following precedents from Calcutta and Karnataka HCs, the court found jurisdiction as the applicant operated through a Delhi marketing office despite the corporate office being in Noida and investigation initiated by DGGI Jaipur. Bail was granted subject to joining investigation when called upon, noting no specific tax evasion amount was mentioned by prosecution.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Application for pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.PC during the investigation by Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) of Jaipur Zonal unit.
- Objection raised on the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter for relief of anticipatory bail.

Jurisdiction for Anticipatory Bail:
The court deliberated on the maintainability of the application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC do not specify the High Court or Court of Session where the offence was committed. It was noted that the legislature envisioned situations where relief of bail can be sought in the court where the applicant resides or anticipates arrest, even if the investigation is conducted elsewhere. The court referenced various judgments to support the interpretation that the jurisdiction for anticipatory bail is not limited to the court within the territorial jurisdiction of the alleged offence.

Legal Precedents and Interpretation:
The court discussed divergent views of different High Courts on the issue of entertaining anticipatory bail applications within the territorial jurisdiction where the offence was not committed. Citing judgments from Kolkata, Karnataka, and Delhi High Courts, it was highlighted that the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is not restricted to the court where the offence occurred. The court underscored the importance of ensuring accused individuals can seek bail where they anticipate arrest, even if the offence was committed outside the court's jurisdiction.

Decision and Justification:
Considering the peculiar facts of the case where the investigation was ongoing in the DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit, the court granted transit anticipatory bail to the accused to prevent possible arrest. The court emphasized the accused's willingness to cooperate in the investigation and the lack of specific mention of tax evasion amount in the department's reply. Additionally, the court noted retractions of statements by some individuals connected with the accused's company. The court highlighted the ultimate objective of the CGST Act to identify tax evasion and collect taxes in accordance with the law.

Final Directions:
The court granted transit anticipatory bail to the accused, enabling them to join the investigation with the DGGI Jaipur Unit. The accused was directed to respond to any summons under section 70 of the Act within two weeks if the DGGI Zonal Unit Jaipur intends to arrest them. The court emphasized that the accused should take legal recourse before the competent court of territorial jurisdiction in Rajasthan for a definitive decision on relief or denial of bail. The application was disposed of with these directions.

---