2025 (7) TMI 1254 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - availment of inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently without any Tax Invoice and without any receipt of goods - infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India - breach of the mandate of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. - on the date of arrest the Applicant was not informed of the grounds for such an arrest - HELD THAT - In the instant case the Applicant accuses non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India thus the burden is on DGGI to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1). DGGI place reliance on the Arrest Memo and the Authorization to Arrest to contend compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1). Perusal of the Arrest Memo dated 12th March 2024 indicates the following that the Applicant being arrested in connection with an offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act; that the Senior Intelligence Officer is authorized to arrest the Applicant under Section 69 of the said Act; that the Applicant has been placed under arrest; and Applicant explained the grounds of his arrest. Paragraph 4 of the Arrest Memo makes reference to the Applicant being explained the grounds of his arrest and that arrest of the Applicant has been witnessed by Shri. Kumar Shankar Rangatte. The DGGI have failed to discharge the burden of DGGI having complied with the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. For the reasons recorded non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. has rendered the custody of Applicant as illegal. Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) 132(1) (C) 132(1)(i) and 132(2) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pune - bail application allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest was complied with.Whether the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) regarding informing the arrested person of grounds of arrest were followed.Whether the Arrest Memo and Authorization to Arrest documents satisfy the legal requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest.Whether non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 Cr.P.C. renders the arrest and subsequent custody illegal.Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail given the nature of the offence, duration of custody, and stage of trial.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of arrest is a "mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)" and must be communicated effectively in a language understood by the arrested person.The Arrest Memo dated 12th March 2024 does not constitute valid grounds of arrest as required by law, and the Authorization to Arrest is an internal document not addressed to the arrested person and thus cannot be construed as furnishing grounds of arrest.Non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 Cr.P.C. "vitiates the arrest of the accused" and renders the custody illegal, warranting bail even if statutory restrictions exist.The burden to prove compliance with Article 22(1) lies on the investigating agency, which failed to discharge this burden in the instant case.Considering the illegality of the arrest and the nature of the offence with a maximum sentence of five years, the Court granted bail on specified conditions.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied constitutional principles under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and statutory provisions under Section 50 Cr.P.C. and Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh, Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, and Vineet Jain v. Union of India were extensively relied upon to emphasize the mandatory nature of informing grounds of arrest in writing and the consequences of non-compliance.The Court rejected the contention that oral explanation or internal authorization suffices, emphasizing that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and acknowledged by the arrested person to fulfill the constitutional mandate.The Court noted that non-compliance with Article 22(1) not only violates fundamental rights but also vitiates the arrest and remand orders, thereby mandating release on bail irrespective of other statutory restrictions.The decision reflects a doctrinal reaffirmation of the constitutional safeguards relating to arrest and the procedural rigor required to uphold personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.