Substantial compliance in arrest safeguards can sustain detention, and a bail order may be quashed on revision.

A criminal revision can challenge the legality of a bail order where the relief sought is annulment of an allegedly illegal or perverse order, rather than cancellation for post-bail misconduct. In arrest challenges under the CGST Act and BNSS, the court applied the tests of reasons to believe, communication of grounds of arrest, substantial compliance, and prejudice, and found that recorded reasons, arrest authorisation, and prompt notice to a relative were sufficient despite minor procedural omissions. On that basis, the arrest was treated as lawful and the bail order was quashed, with the bail bonds cancelled.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside a bail order is maintainable distinct from a petition for cancellation of bail; (ii) whether the arrest of the accused under the CGST Act and the BNSS was illegal for want of proper grounds of arrest being reflected in the arrest memo and notice to relatives, and whether the bail order was therefore sustainable.

Issue (i): whether a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside a bail order is maintainable distinct from a petition for cancellation of bail.

Analysis: The relief sought was to set aside the order granting bail on the ground that it was illegal and perverse, not to cancel bail on account of post-bail misconduct or supervening circumstances. The distinction between annulment of an unjustified bail order and cancellation of bail was applied, and the Court held that it could examine the legality of the impugned bail order in revision.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable to challenge the legality of the bail order.

Issue (ii): whether the arrest of the accused under the CGST Act and the BNSS was illegal for want of proper grounds of arrest being reflected in the arrest memo and notice to relatives, and whether the bail order was therefore sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that the arresting authority had recorded reasons to believe, identified the alleged ineligible input tax credit, and issued authorization to arrest and grounds of arrest in substance. The arrest memos were acknowledged by the accused, and notices to the relative were promptly served. Applying the principles on reasons to believe, communication of grounds of arrest, substantial compliance, and the prejudice-oriented test, the Court found no illegality in the arrest process. It further held that minor procedural lapses such as omission of headings did not vitiate the arrest when the substance of the statutory safeguards had been complied with.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be lawful, and the bail order was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned bail order was quashed, the bail bonds stood cancelled, and the accused were left at liberty to seek bail before the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: In arrest-related challenges under a special fiscal statute, the legality of the arrest depends on substantial compliance with the statutory safeguards on reasons to believe and communication of grounds, and a procedural omission does not vitiate the arrest absent demonstrable prejudice; a superior court may set aside a bail order that is founded on an erroneous view of such compliance.

---