TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Input Tax Credit fraud: BNSS safeguards and arrest formalities upheld; limited custodial interrogation allowed for one accused, other restored to magistrate order.</h1> Input tax credit fraud investigation involved issues of compliance with BNSS safeguards, arrest formalities, bail and scope of custodial interrogation. ... Input Tax Credit fraud - Compliance with BNSS, 2023 safeguards - Furnishing of grounds of arrest and arrest memo - Right to bail and custody pending investigation - High Court review of magistrate's bail order - Custodial interrogation - HELD THAT:- As mentioned earlier, the appellants are the father and the son. Appellant No. 2, who is the son, is stated to be a student. Some custodial interrogation, of the appellants, has already taken place in West Bengal. In such view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order, insofar as appellant No. 2 is concerned, by restoring the order dated 07.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. We are conscious of the fact that the investigation is not complete and the respondent-Union of India is of the view that custodial interrogation, of appellant No. 1, is required. In such view of the matter, we grant custodial interrogation, of appellant No. 1, for consecutive days starting from the 28th of January, 2026 to the 31st of January, 2026 till 5 p.m. Accordingly, the interim custody, in the aforesaid terms, is granted, qua appellant No. 1, to the respondent-Union of India. Thereafter, he shall be released. Issues: (i) Whether the procedural safeguards under the BNSS, 2023 relating to arrest and intimation to relatives were complied with; (ii) Whether bail granted by the Magistrate dated 07.06.2025 should be restored for the appellants and whether custodial interrogation of appellant No.1 should be permitted.Issue (i): Whether the procedural safeguards under the BNSS, 2023 relating to arrest and intimation to relatives were complied with.Analysis: The High Court found that arrest memos, including authorization showing reasons to believe and grounds of arrest, were provided to the arrestees and acknowledged by their signatures. Intimation of arrest was given to a close relative who acknowledged receipt. Videography of proceedings and provision of relevant documents were recorded. The lower court had earlier held safeguards were not complied with, but the High Court reached a contrary factual finding based on acknowledgements and contemporaneous records.Conclusion: The procedural safeguards under the BNSS, 2023 were found to have been complied with.Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate's bail order dated 07.06.2025 should be restored for the appellants and whether custodial interrogation of appellant No.1 should be permitted.Analysis: The appellants comprise father and son; custodial interrogation had partly taken place earlier and the son is a student. The Court treated the two appellants differently on the facts: it restored the Magistrate's bail order in favor of appellant No.2 by setting aside the High Court order as to him, while permitting limited custodial interrogation of appellant No.1 for specified consecutive dates and times, after which he is to be released and subject to trial court conditions. Both appellants were directed to cooperate with the investigation.Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in respect of appellant No.2; limited custodial interrogation is permitted in respect of appellant No.1 and thereafter he shall be released.Final Conclusion: On the facts, procedural compliance with BNSS, 2023 was held to be established and the reliefs were apportioned: bail restored for appellant No.2 and temporary custodial interrogation granted for appellant No.1, after which release is mandated.Ratio Decidendi: Where arrest memos, grounds of arrest and intimations to relatives are furnished and acknowledged and contemporaneous records (including videography) exist, the procedural safeguards under BNSS, 2023 are satisfied and do not, by themselves, mandate setting aside a subsequent High Court order reversing a magistrate's bail unless prejudice is shown.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
