9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority and on 07.03.2025, he was arrested in connection with this case and since then, he is in judicial custody. As per allegation, he supplied coal without payment of applicable GST of Rs. 8.10 Crores and Compensation Cess of Rs. 6.57 Crores totaling to Rs. 14.67 Crores during the period from February 2024 to February 2025. However, during his entire period in judicial custody, the Investigating Authority did not asked for any police remand nor made any prayer for custodial interrogation. He has been arrested connection with this case merely on suspicion and in a very mechanical manner and without any proper investigation or his involvement in the alleged offence, and accordingly, Mr. Mahajan submitted that it is a fit case wherein the accused/ petitioner may be granted with the privilege of bail. More so, he submitted that the present petitioner is 100% visually impaired person and it is absolutely improbable, unbelievable and also impracticable that a person with 100% blindness would be able to be a controller of alleged 6 numbers of dummy entities and involved himself in a clandestine supply of coal without payment of applicable GST and Compensation Cess. 5. Mr. Mahaj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oE that while "grounds of arrest" were mandatorily required to be supplied to the arrestee, "reasons to believe", being an internal and confidential document, need not be disclosed, was decisively rejected in Arvind Kejriwal (supra). It was held that "reasons to believe" are to be furnished to the arrestee such that they can challenge the legality of their arrest. Exceptions are available in one-off cases where appropriate redactions of "reasons to believe" are permissible. The relevant portion reads: "41. Once we hold that the accused is entitled to challenge his arrest under Section 19(1) of the PML Act, the court to examine the validity of arrest must catechise both the existence and soundness of the "reasons to believe", based upon the material available with the authorized officer. It is difficult to accept that the "reasons to believe", as recorded in writing, are not to be furnished. As observed above, the requirements in Section 19(1) are the jurisdictional conditions to be satisfied for arrest, the validity of which can be challenged by the accused and examined by the court. Consequently, it would be incongruous, if not wrong, to hold that the accused can be denied and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their arrest. 9. Mr. Mahajan further submitted that no proper assessment was undertaken by the concerned Assessing Officer and the Investigating Agency and in a very mechanical and arbitrary manner, the accused/petitioner was arrested without proper determination of tax, cess, penalty and the interest by the Assessing Authority and imposed an imaginary figure of Rs. 8.10 Crores and Compensation Cess of Rs. 6.57 Crores totaling to Rs. 14.67 Crores without proper assessment. More so, considering the maximum punishment under the offence attributed in the instant case, the issuance of Notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, corresponding to Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., is mandatory as per direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. 10. Mr. Mahajan further raised the issue of non-mentioning of DIN number in 3 (three) documents, namely, Authorization Letter of Arrest, Grounds of Arrest and Arrest Memo. He submitted that in absence of DIN number, a person cannot be arrested and can be considered as a good ground for bail. More so, he submitted that the reasons to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation of this case. 14. Mr. Mahajan also submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and during the custodial period of the present petitioner, the Investigating Authority has already recovered all the relevant documents from the possession of the present accused/petitioner and accordingly he submitted that considering all these grounds and also considering the non-compliance of the provision of Section 41/41A Cr.P.C., viz-a-viz non-compliance of Sections 47/48 of BNSS, and also considering the non-furnishing of reasons to believe, as recorded by the authority concerned, the bail prayer of the present petitioner may be considered. 15. Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST submitted in this regard that in all the documents, the DIN numbers have been mentioned and there is sufficient compliance of Section 70 of CGST Act, which is corresponding to Section 41A of Cr.P.C. Further he submitted that the reasons to believe has already been recorded by the authority concerned which is in the file. He accordingly produced the record wherefrom it is seen that the reasons to believe has been recorded by the investigating authority. He further submitted that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anate from prescription contained in the Act itself. Section 69(1) of CGST Act, 2017 very clearly delineates the power of the Commissioner to order the arrest of a person whom he has reasons to believe, to have committed an offence which is cognizable and non-bailable." 19. Mr. Keyal further submitted that the present case is also considered to be an economic offence and hence it has to be viewed with a different approach while dealing with the matter of bail. In that context, he also relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2013) and emphasized on paragraph Nos. 15 & 16 of the judgment, which reads as under: "15) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 16) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it is not at all a fit case to consider the bail application of the present petitioner only on the ground of his detention and the illness. His further custodial interrogation will be required for the proper investigation of this case and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there may be probability of hampering or tampering with the investigation of this case. 22. After hearing the entire submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition and the record which was produced by the respondent authorities. 23. It is seen that there is no dispute in regards to the Arrest Memo issued by the respondent authorities by complying all necessary formalities under Section 69 of the CGST Act. But it is the issue raised by the petitioner that there was no proper compliance of Section 41/41A of Cr.P.C. which are mandatorily required to be followed. From the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Radhika Agarwal (supra), it is evident that though the CGST is a special enactment, but the same cannot be considered as a complete Code in itself as regards to the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of Section 41/41A Cr.P.C., viz- a-viz the Grounds of Arrest, was also not communicated which are mandatorily required to be furnished and in the same time, the "reasons to believe", as recorded by the authority concerned, was also not communicated to the present accused/petitioner which may be a grounds for consideration of bail. 26. It is also seen that the accused/petitioner is in custody for last 29/30 days and thus, the I.O. got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner keeping him in custody. Regarding his visual impairment, as claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the Certificate of Disability issued by the authority concerned, it is seen that the said Certificate was issued prior to the institution of the case and it is not that the certificate was procure after filing of the F.I.R. However, the genuinity of the said Certificate may be verified by constituting a Medical Board and that may be ordered accordingly by the learned Trial Court below at the time of trial. But prima facie it is seen that the Certificate of Disability was issued in favour of the present petitioner and despite his physical disability, the petitioner has co-operated in the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
