TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jain, Advocate, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Deify Jindal, Advocate. For the Respondent - CBIC: Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocate. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for directing respondent No.1 to recover the husband of the petitioner, namely, Bharat Lal Garg (hereinafter to be referred as 'detenue') from the illegal custody of respondents No. 2 and 3 and to hand him over to the petitioner and his family members or in alternative, appoint a Warrant for this purpose. 2. Affidavit of Sanket Kale, Additional Director G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. This office has recorded several statements in the presence of CCTV cameras. However, on certain occasions in the past, the cameras became non-operational for limited periods due to unforeseen technical issues which has duly been recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and swift action was taken to make them functional. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to avoid such situations in future, all the Senior Intelligence officers, who are entrusted with recording statements, have been instructed to ensure that CCTV cameras are functional before commencing the statement. 8. It has also been noted that in case of any construction activities which can interfere with the proper functioning of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been instructed to carry the original records to be produced before this Hon'ble court on 30th July 2025. 13. That in compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court issued vide order dated 02.07.2025, deponent has filed an affidavit before this Hon'ble Court on the previous date of hearing i.e. 18.07.2025. 14. That as regards arrest of Bharat Lal made in this case, it is pertinent to mention here that there was complete application of mind and the arrest was not done mechanically. 15. That as regard the allegation of causing obstruction to the warrant officer is concerned, it was stated in the earlier affidavit that the deponent was not present on the spot where the warrant officer was situat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 449, a Division bench of the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Devchand Gala vs. Union Of India of India and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.938 of 2024 decided on 24.09.2024 and a Division bench of the Telangana High Court in Agarwal Foundries Private Limited Rama Towers and others vs. Union of India and others, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1446, the arrest of the detenue-Bharat Lal Goyal was declared illegal. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below: "17. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find any justifiable reasons to condone keeping the detenue in the zonal office for over 30 hours. Curiously, a pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1973 (Cr.P.C.) would not be applicable. Be that as it may, the DGGI officials have failed to indicate any reasons necessitating the continuation of interrogation into the night. Therefore, reason dictates that since the detenue was held in informal custody for an indefinite period, he is entitled to the protections available under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, as held in Agarwal Foundaries (supra). Further, the detenue is also entitled to be released in view of the directions issued in Mahesh Devchand Gala (supra) that led to issuance of Circular dated 27.03.2025. xxx xxx xxx 25. This Court has no hesitation to observe that the designated officer merely gave authorization on the ipse dixit of the Intelli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrest and remand stand vitiated. Moreover, the DGGI officials also failed to supply the detenue with the 'reasons to believe' that he has committed an offence under the CGST Act, necessitating his arrest. Such conduct is in clear violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal (supra) and Arvind Kejriwal (supra), and would therefore render the arrest of the detenue illegal and non est in the eyes of law. 30. Lastly, there is nothing available on the record that would prompt this Court to disbelieve the report of the Warrant Officer. 31. In conclusion, the statement of any person summoned by the DGGI must be recorded during office hours in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of....