Saurav Gupta VS CGST

The present application for bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in relation to File No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ/SUBH/1052/2020/PART/SAURABH. This application is intended to secure bail in anticipation of an arrest that may occur due to the ongoing investigation associated with this file number. Section 438 Cr.P.C. provides for anticipatory bail, which allows a person who believes that they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense to apply for bail in advance of such an arrest.

In the context of this application, the petitioner seeks to prevent any potential arrest and ensure their freedom while the investigation continues. The specifics of the case related to this file number involve various legal and procedural elements that have prompted the petitioner to seek this preemptive relief. The court’s consideration of this application will involve assessing whether there are sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail, including evaluating factors such as the nature of the offense, the likelihood of the petitioner fleeing or tampering with evidence, and any other relevant circumstances surrounding the case.

The outcome of this application will significantly impact the petitioner’s legal situation, either allowing them to avoid arrest and remain free under certain conditions or leading to further legal actions depending on the court’s decision.

The current bail application is presented under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), where the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail concerning File No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ/SUBH/1052/2020/PART/SAURABH. During the previous hearing, the court had postponed the case to allow the petitioner’s counsel to obtain the necessary instructions. The counsel for the respondent has stated that no formal complaint has been lodged to date, and the petitioner has only been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite this, the petitioner has neither appeared nor responded to the summons. Additionally, a ‘Look Out Circular’ has been issued against the petitioner.

The bail application currently before the court is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with File No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ/SUBH/1052/2020/PART/SAURABH. During the last hearing, the matter was postponed to give the petitioner’s legal counsel time to gather the necessary instructions. The respondent’s counsel has reported that no formal complaint has been filed to date against the petitioner, and the petitioner has only been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the petitioner has failed to respond to or attend these summons. Additionally, a ‘Look Out Circular’ has been issued against the petitioner. In the present hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, following instructions from their client, has indicated that the petitioner is prepared to return to India and comply with legal procedures.

In the current legal proceedings, a bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with File No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ/SUBH/1052/2020/PART/SAURABH. On the previous court date, the matter was adjourned to allow the petitioner’s counsel time to secure appropriate instructions regarding the case.

The counsel representing the respondent has indicated that, as of now, no formal complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner has been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite this summons, the petitioner has neither appeared before the authorities nor responded to it. Additionally, a ‘Look Out Circular’ has been issued against the petitioner.

In today’s proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, acting on new instructions, stated that the petitioner is prepared to return to India and cooperate with the investigation. The counsel assured that the petitioner will appear before the investigating authority and join the investigation as required. However, due to ongoing pandemic-related flight restrictions, the counsel requested a two-week extension to facilitate the petitioner’s return and compliance with the investigation requirements.

In the present case, the petitioner has filed a bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail concerning File No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ/SUBH/1052/2020/PART/SAURABH. During the previous hearing, the matter was re-notified to allow the petitioner’s counsel to secure the necessary instructions. The respondent’s counsel informed the court that, as of now, no formal complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner has only been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but has failed to appear or respond to the summons. Additionally, a ‘Look Out Circular’ has been issued against the petitioner.

In today’s proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, acting on instructions, stated that the petitioner is prepared to return to India and cooperate with the investigation. The counsel requested a two-week extension to facilitate the petitioner’s return due to pandemic-related flight restrictions. The court recorded the petitioner’s undertaking to appear before the relevant authority and join the investigation.

The respondent’s counsel, based on instructions, indicated that the respondent authority would only decide whether to proceed under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and potentially take coercive actions after the petitioner has joined the investigation.

The present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with File No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ/SUBH/1052/2020/PART/SAURABH. During the last hearing, the case was re-notified to allow the petitioner’s counsel time to obtain the necessary instructions.

The respondent’s counsel reported that, as of now, no formal complaint has been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner has been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but has not responded or appeared in response to the summons. Additionally, a Look Out Circular (LOC) has been issued against the petitioner.

In the current hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, having received instructions, indicated that the petitioner is prepared to return to India and cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner has undertaken to appear before the respondent authority and participate in the investigation. However, due to the pandemic and flight restrictions, the petitioner requests a two-week period to arrange for their return.

The undertaking provided by the petitioner is recorded, and the petitioner will be bound by this commitment. The respondent’s counsel, based on instructions, stated that only after the petitioner joins the investigation will the authority decide whether to proceed under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and consider any coercive actions.

It has been directed that, provided the petitioner appears and joins the investigation, if the respondent authority decides to proceed under Section 69 and takes coercive measures, a seven-day advance notice must be given to the petitioner. Additionally, appropriate measures should be taken regarding the LOC to facilitate the petitioner’s return to India for the investigation.

The bail application is disposed of based on these terms.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: