GST arrest safeguards and lack of need for further custodial interrogation led to bail being granted.

In a prosecution under the CGST Act, the HC treated arrest safeguards as applicable and found non-compliance with the arrest procedure, including omission of the Document Identification Number in the papers supplied to the accused and failure to communicate the recorded reasons to believe. The accused had already been in custody for about 29 to 30 days, the investigation had substantially progressed, and most relevant documents had been collected, so further custodial interrogation was not considered necessary. The accused's claimed disability was also noted as a supporting circumstance. Bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in view of the alleged non-compliance with arrest safeguards and the absence of necessity for further custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The arrest was found to have been made under the GST framework, but the Court held that the safeguards governing arrest and communication of grounds remained applicable. It was found that the requirements corresponding to arrest procedure were not complied with, including the omission of the Document Identification Number in the documents furnished to the accused and the non-communication of the recorded reasons to believe. The Court also found that the accused had remained in custody for about 29 to 30 days, that the investigation had substantially progressed, and that most relevant documents had already been collected. In these circumstances, further custodial interrogation was held not to be necessary. The claimed disability of the accused was also noticed as a supporting circumstance.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the accused, subject to conditions.

---