Santhosh Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Santhosh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in Madurai. The DGGI is investigating alleged GST violations by a company, M/s. Digitally Powerful, where the petitioner is a partner. The company provides online promotions and marketing services. Following a raid on December 2, 2025, and seizure of materials, the DGGI issued a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The petitioner had previously been granted interim anticipatory bail on the condition of cooperating with the investigation. However, the prosecution alleged that while the petitioner appeared and provided some documents, he subsequently refused to furnish the remaining required documents.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Santhosh Kumar. The decision was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the petitioner's previous interim anticipatory bail and his appearance before the respondent. While the prosecution noted the petitioner's alleged refusal to provide all requested documents, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum. Additional conditions were imposed, including daily reporting to the respondent for two weeks, subsequent reporting as required, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not absconding. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala regarding actions upon breach of bail conditions. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of GST violations and the alleged non-cooperation with the investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 69 read with 132 of the CGST Act. The petitioner's counsel argued for the grant of bail. (Specific arguments beyond seeking bail are not detailed in the judgment). Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the Senior Intelligence Officer of DGGI, submitted that although the petitioner had appeared and provided some documents, he was subsequently refusing to provide the remaining necessary documents, indicating a lack of full cooperation with the ongoing investigation.