Anticipatory bail in GST fraud investigation confirmed with conditions; nonappearance may trigger cancellation after notice.

The note addresses anticipatory bail in a GST fraud investigation where fake bills led to ITC reversal. It applies the Supreme Court observation that summons issued for recording statements under the GST framework are not a basis for invoking general anticipatory bail principles in isolation, but finds genuine apprehension of arrest due to a co-accused arrest justified granting protective relief. The reasoning emphasises the accused was not a main perpetrator, cooperated and gave statements under GST inquiry powers, so anticipatory bail is confirmed subject to a 48-hour summons notice condition and liberty for the investigating agency to move for cancellation on nonappearance.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent accused Jitender Kumar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) and the subsequent dismissal of the petition seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail by the DGGI.

Grant of Anticipatory Bail:
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) filed a petition seeking the setting aside of the order granting anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar. The DGGI contended that the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable to cases involving offenses under the CGST Act. It was argued that Jitender Kumar was involved in a serious economic offense related to GST evasion amounting to Rs.218 crores. The DGGI highlighted discrepancies in the business activities of the involved companies and the testing results of seized smoking mixtures. However, the court found that Jitender Kumar was not the main player in the fraud, had clean antecedents, cooperated in the investigation, and sustained the grant of anticipatory bail.

Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail:
The DGGI sought the cancellation of Jitender Kumar's anticipatory bail on the grounds of non-compliance with bail conditions. The DGGI alleged lack of cooperation in the investigation and failure to deposit the passport with the Investigation Officer. However, the court found that Jitender Kumar had cooperated in the investigation, and the passport issue was resolved as it had expired and was not renewed. The court also addressed the reversal of Input Tax Credit and the condition of leaving NCR without informing the IO. Ultimately, the court declined to interfere with the orders granting anticipatory bail and dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that Jitender Kumar must strictly comply with the imposed conditions.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the grant of anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar, warning him to comply with future summons from the DGGI. The DGGI was granted liberty to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail if Jitender Kumar fails to appear promptly. The court dismissed the petitions, clarifying that the observations made were solely for bail decisions and not indicative of the case's merits.

---