TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence (DGGI) seeking setting aside of the order CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 and connected matters Page 2 of 9 dated 2nd February, 2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent accused Jitender Kumar. 2. CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 has been filed by the petitioner DGGI seeking setting aside of the order dated 24th April, 2023, whereby the learned ASJ has dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the DGGI seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent on 2nd February, 2023. 3. Brief facts, as agitated by the DGGI, are as follows: 3.1 The officers of DRI Gandhidham and DGGI, acting on intelligence, intercepted 21 containers carrying smok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber, 2022 under the allegations of having committed offences under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act. 3.7 The co-accused Manish Goyal preferred a bail application before the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which was allowed vide order dated 21st December, 2022 and he was released on regular bail. 3.8 Jitender Kumar preferred an anticipatory bail before the learned ASJ, which was granted vide order dated 2nd February, 2023. 3.9 The DGGI moved an application before the Sessions Court, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid anticipatory bail on the grounds of violation of the conditions mentioned therein, which was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 24th April, 2023. 4. Senior Standing Counsels appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Radiant Traders. VI. Jitender Kumar has violated the conditions of bail as prescribed in the order dated 2nd February, 2023 and therefore, his anticipatory bail should be cancelled. 5. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of Jitender Kumar has made the following submissions: I. The order passed in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) is distinguishable from the present case as in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra), the accused persons were only summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act and there was no apprehension of arrest. However, in the present case, one of the co-accused Manish Goyal had already been arrested and therefore there was a genuine apprehension of arrest. Further, the order in Choodamani Parmeshwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra). 8. In Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that if any person is summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act for the purpose of recording his statement, provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC cannot be invoked. In the said case, the accused persons were not appearing before the authorities despite repeated summons being issued to them and had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail. It was in those circumstances that the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. 9. In the present case, it has rightly been contended on behalf of Jitender Kumar that one of the co-accused persons, Manish Goyal, was arrested by the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Jitender Kumar. 14. Now, I shall deal with the submissions of the DGGI with regard to cancellation of bail on account of non-compliance of bail conditions. 15. The DGGI has contended that Jitender Kumar has not co-operated in the investigation after grant of anticipatory bail. This contention was raised by the DGGI before the learned ASJ as well and the same was rejected by the learned ASJ observing that Jitender Kumar has joined the investigation on several dates including 20th and 21st February, 2023, when the statement under Section 70 of CGST Act was recorded. Hence, I do not agree with the aforesaid submission of the DGGI that Jitender Kumar has not joined investigation. 16. It has been strongly urged on behalf of the DGGI....