Abdul Karim vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Original PDF →

WP/42/2026HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM07001181202612 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR6 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Petitioner, Abdul Karim, filed a writ petition challenging his arrest and subsequent judicial custody in connection with a case registered by the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Kolhapur. The Petitioner contended that his arrest was illegal and violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. He raised several grounds, including the 'reason to believe' order not being signed by a competent authority, non-compliance with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), failure to inform family members of the arrest, denial of legal consultation, and the Magistrate passing a non-speaking order for remand. The Respondents, including the Union of India and DGGI officials, opposed the petition, asserting that the arrest followed due procedure and that the Petitioner had made statements implicating himself in tax evasion under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner failed to make out a case for violation of his fundamental rights. Regarding the 'reason to believe' order, the Court found it to be digitally signed by the competent authority and that the grounds of arrest were duly served on the Petitioner on 04.12.2025. The Court noted that the arrest memo was signed by the Petitioner's friend and that the Respondents stated on oath that the Petitioner's wife was informed of the arrest. The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner was arrested in the presence of his friend and his wife was informed, it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to engage a lawyer of his choice. The Court also found no merit in the contention that the Magistrate passed a non-speaking order, observing that the Magistrate's order explicitly mentioned compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and justified the arrest. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Radhika Agarwal V/s. Union of India, the Court reiterated that judicial review in cases of arrest under special acts like GST should be confined to checking compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court found no substance in the Petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition. The trial court was directed to decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the arrest of the Petitioner was illegal and in gross violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, particularly concerning the 'reason to believe' order, compliance with BNSS provisions, notification of arrest to family, and the opportunity to consult legal counsel? 2. Whether the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class authorizing the Petitioner's detention in judicial custody was a non-speaking order and thus void, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional mandates? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the 'reason to believe' order was not signed by a competent authority. He also claimed non-compliance with Sections 35(3) and 36(1)(b) of the BNSS. Further, he contended that his family was not informed of his arrest, the arrest memo was signed by a friend, he was not supplied grounds of arrest legally, and was denied the opportunity to consult a lawyer of his choice. Lastly, he argued the Magistrate's remand order was non-speaking. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents contended that the Petitioner made incorrect statements and that the arrest was conducted following due procedure. They presented the 'reasons to believe' order, stating it was digitally signed by the competent authority and that the grounds of arrest were served on the Petitioner in Hindi. They also stated on oath that the Petitioner's wife was informed of the arrest, and since he was arrested in the presence of his friend, it was his responsibility to engage a lawyer. They further argued that the remand application detailed the grounds for arrest and that the Magistrate's order indicated compliance with BNSS Sections 47 and 48, justifying the arrest.

Sections Cited

Section 35(3), Section 36(1)(b), Section 47, Section 48, Article 21, Article 22

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 71-WP-42-2026 (CR) (STM).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 42 OF 2026 Abdul Karim ...Petitioner VERSUS The Union Of India And Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Santosh Punalkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mr. D.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : 12th FEBRUARY, 2026 P.C. 1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks following reliefs : “(a) Declare the arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of the statutory right and fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Art. 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India in relation to case no. DGGI/INT/INTL/1256/2025-O/o DD-DGGI-RU- KOLHAPUR registered by Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Kolhapur Regional Unit (KRU), Through Shri Suraj S. Pawar, Senior Intelligence Officer, Kolhapur Regional Unit i.e. Respondent No. 5. (b) Declare and set aside the Order dt. 5.12.2025 passed by Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 1), Kolhapur as null and void as the same being passed in complete violation of principle of natural justice being as non speaking order and in complete violation of all constitutional mandates including failure to consult and to be defended by legal practitioner of his choice during the remand Sajakali Jamadar This order is modified as peer order dated 27.02.2026. SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date: 2026.02.27 15:36:23 +0530 2 71-WP-42-2026 (CR) (STM).DOC Proceedings, being violative of Petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. (c) Direct immediate release of the Petitioner from custody in case no. DGGI/INT/INTL/1256/2025-O/o DD-DGGI-RU-KOLHAPUR, dt. 5.12.2025 registered by DGGI, Kolhapur. (d) The appropriate compensation for breach of Fundamental Rights may kindly be granted to the Petitioner. ” 2. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Perused the record. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the arrest of the Petitioner is illegal and the same is in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India on the following grounds : i. ‘The reason to believe’ order is not signed by the competent authority. ii. There is non-compliance of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). iii. There is violation of Section 36(1)(b) of the BNSS. iv. The arrest of Petitioner was not informed to his family members and arrest memo is signed by the friend of the Petitioner and not by the family member. v. Non supply of grounds of arrest in legal manner to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was denied opportunity to consult lawyer of his choice. Sajakali Jamadar This order is modified as peer order dated 27.02.2026. 3 71-WP-42-2026 (CR) (STM).DOC vi. The learned Magistrate has passed a non speaking order authorizing detention of the Petitioner in judicial custody. 4. Learned Advocates for the Respondents have strenuously opposed the Petition by pointing out the documents on record and the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent Nos.4 & 5. According to them, the Petitioner has made incorrect statements in the Petition and the Petitioner is arrested after following due procedure of law. 5. It is a matter of record that prior to the arrest, thrice Petitioner’s statement was recorded, wherein his involvement in the commission of offence under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the modus operandi and evasion of tax is disclosed. 6. ‘The reasons to believe for the arrest of Petitioner’ are placed on record at Exhibit-E. In the said ‘reasons to believe’, the Respondent No.4 has not only recorded the grounds of arrest but also the reasons for arrest. The record further reveals that the statutory provisions were followed at the time of arrest of the Petitioner. Respondent No.4 has issued authorization of arrest of Petitioner on 04.12.2025. On the same day, ‘the reasons to believe for arrest of the Petitioner’ are duly served on the Petitioner. There is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that ‘the reasons to believe’ are not signed by the Sajakali Jamadar This order is modified as peer order dated 27.02.2026. 4 71-WP-42-2026 (CR) (STM).DOC competent authority and therefore the arrest of the Petitioner is illegal. 7. Learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 has pointed out that the document containing reasons of arrest is digitally signed by Respondent No.4 and his seal appears on each and every page of the said documents. 8. The grounds of arrest translated in Hindi language are served on the Petitioner on 04.12.2025. The Petitioner has signed in document token of receipt of the same. The arrest memo of the Petitioner is signed by his friend and the Respondents stated on oath that the intimation of arrest of the Petitioner was given to his wife. Since the Petitioner was arrested in the presence of his friend and the arrest was informed to his wife, it was for the Petitioner to engage a lawyer of his choice. 9. The remand application submitted before the learned Magistrate sets out the grounds and reasons for arrest of the Petitioner in detail. 10. The learned Magistrate has passed following order on the remand application: “1. Accused namely Abdul Karim produced before me at 1.30 pm. By senior intelligence officer Suraj S. Pawar of DGGI, Kolhapur regonal unit. No complaint of ill-treatment at the hands of GST officer. Compliance Section 47 and 48 of BNSS. Appears to be done. Arrest is justified. Sajakali Jamadar This order is modified as peer order dated 27.02.2026. 5 71-WP-42-2026 (CR) (STM).DOC Ld. A.P.P. absent. Hence, accused is taken in judicial custody till 18.12.2025.” 11. Thus it is categorically observed in the above order that the compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS appears to be done and the arrest is justified. 12. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner that learned Magistrate has passed non

speaking order.

13.

The respondents rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Agarwal V/s. Union of India, reported in 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 225 (S.C.), wherein it is held that :

“87. However, when the legality of such an arrest made under the Special Acts like PMLA, UAPA, Foreign Exchange, Customs Act, GST Acts, etc. is challenged, the Court should be extremely loath in exercising its power of judicial review. In such cases, the exercise of the power should be confined only to see whether the statutory and constitutional safeguards are properly complied with or not, namely to ascertain whether the officer was an authorized officer under the Act, whether the reason to believe that the person was guilty of the offence under the Act, was based on the “material” in possession of the authorized officer or not, and whether the arrestee was informed about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest was made. Sufficiency or adequacy of material on the basis of which the belief is formed by the officer, or the correctness of the facts on the basis of which such belief is formed to arrest the person, could not be a matter of judicial review.”

14.

In view of aforesaid ratio, we find no merit in the Petition. Sajakali Jamadar This order is modified as peer order dated 27.02.2026. 6 71-WP-42-2026 (CR) (STM).DOC

15.

In the light of above, the Petitioner has failed to make out the case of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The Petition being devoid of merit, is therefore dismissed.

16.

The trial Court shall decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order (AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Sajakali Jamadar This order is modified as peer order dated 27.02.2026.

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.