Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in proceedings arising from summons under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the investigating officer was bound to comply with the safeguards governing arrest under Section 41 and notice of appearance under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The application was not decided by granting or refusing anticipatory bail on merits. The Court examined the statutory scheme of arrest for offences punishable up to seven years and relied on the principles stated in Arnesh Kumar to hold that arrest cannot be made mechanically or in a routine manner. Before arrest, the investigating officer must satisfy the statutory conditions, record reasons for arrest as well as for not arresting, and where arrest is not required, issue notice of appearance under Section 41-A. Non-compliance with the notice may justify arrest, but only in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The investigating officer was directed to strictly comply with Section 41 and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the anticipatory bail application was disposed of with those directions.
Ratio Decidendi: For offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, arrest is permissible only after the statutory preconditions are satisfied and recorded reasons support the necessity of arrest; otherwise, notice of appearance must be issued and complied with before coercive arrest is made.