Mandatory arrest safeguards under GST can justify bail when reasons are not furnished and further custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

Arrest under the GST framework remains subject to mandatory criminal-law and constitutional safeguards unless expressly excluded, and non-compliance with those safeguards can justify bail. The arrest documents supplied did not communicate the recorded reasons to believe, and the paperwork also lacked the required DIN particulars. As the petitioner had already spent about one month in custody, the investigation had substantially progressed, relevant documents had been collected, and the agency did not show that further custodial interrogation was necessary, continued detention was held unwarranted and bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory arrest procedure, non-furnishing of the recorded reasons to believe and the absence of any demonstrated need for further custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The petition arose from an arrest under the GST enactment, but the arrest procedure was held to remain subject to the applicable criminal procedure safeguards unless expressly excluded. It was found that the arrest documents supplied to the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under the criminal law framework and the constitutional protections of personal liberty. The recorded reasons to believe, though available in the file, were not communicated to the petitioner, and the documents furnished also lacked the required DIN particulars. The Court further noted that the petitioner had already remained in custody for about one month, the investigation had substantially progressed, relevant documents had been collected, and the investigating agency had not shown that further custodial interrogation was necessary.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the arrest-related procedural non-compliance and the absence of a need for further custody justified release.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arrest procedure is not shown to have complied with mandatory criminal-law safeguards and the recorded basis for arrest is not furnished to the arrestee, continued custody is not warranted if further custodial interrogation is unnecessary for the investigation.

---