Delhi HC restores bail after Sessions Court cancellation, rules non-appearance on few dates insufficient grounds

The Delhi HC set aside the Sessions Court's order cancelling regular bail granted to the accused. The HC held that non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates cannot be grounds for bail cancellation, particularly when the accused had appeared on various other occasions pursuant to summons. The court restored the bail but warned that future non-compliance with summons would result in cancellation. The HC directed that DGGI must provide at least 48 hours notice for appearance and granted liberty to seek bail cancellation for timely non-appearance. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the grant of regular bail to the accused Manish Goyal by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) and the subsequent cancellation of the bail by the same ASJ based on non-appearance of the accused for investigation.

Issue 1: Grant of Regular Bail
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) filed a petition against the order granting bail to Manish Goyal, who was accused of economic offenses related to GST evasion. The DGGI presented evidence showing discrepancies in the business activities of M/s Radiant Traders, the accused's firm, and the quality of the products being exported. Manish Goyal was arrested under the CGST Act, and his bail application was initially dismissed but later granted by the ASJ. The DGGI argued that Manish Goyal needed to be in custody to uncover the conspiracy and prevent interaction with other accused persons. They relied on Manish Goyal's statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act, which indicated discrepancies in the business operations and product manufacturing at M/s Radiant Traders.

Issue 2: Cancellation of Bail
After being granted bail, Manish Goyal failed to comply with investigation summons, leading the DGGI to seek cancellation of his bail. The ASJ granted the cancellation, citing non-compliance with the investigation process. However, the defense argued that the CRCL report was inconclusive, and there was no criminal complaint filed yet, making it a pre-chargesheet case. They contended that non-appearance on one date, except due to ill-health, should not be grounds for bail cancellation. The High Court reviewed the statements of involved parties and found that Manish Goyal seemed to be acting under the direction of the main accused, Chirag Goel, who controlled M/s Radiant Traders. The court concluded that the cancellation of bail based on non-appearance on one or two dates was unwarranted and set aside the ASJ's order.

Separate Judgment:
The High Court, while confirming the bail granted to Manish Goyal, warned him to strictly comply with the conditions imposed during the bail grant. Non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates was deemed insufficient for bail cancellation. However, Manish Goyal was cautioned that future non-compliance could lead to bail cancellation, with the DGGI required to provide a 48-hour notice before seeking cancellation. The DGGI was given liberty to request bail cancellation if Manish Goyal failed to appear promptly as per summons issued. The court emphasized that its observations were solely for bail decisions and not indicative of the case's merits.

---