State By Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Mr Hanumanthappa Pathrera Laxmana

Facts

The State, through the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods & Service-Tax Intelligence, filed a criminal petition seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent, Mr. Hanumanthappa Pathreralaxmana, by the High Court on June 11, 2020, in Crl.P. No. 2419/2020. The petitioner contended that the respondent had violated condition No. 4 of the bail order, which required him to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer when called. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was not cooperating, was making baseless allegations against the Investigating Officer, and was employing delaying tactics to erase evidence of the alleged fraud related to GST payment. The respondent, through his counsel, stated his willingness to cooperate and appear before the Investigating Officer, attributing his prior complaint against the officer to ill-treatment.

Held

The Court held that in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, there was no reason to entertain the petition for cancellation of bail. The Court placed on record the respondent's submission that he was ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and appear before him whenever called for further investigation. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a clear direction that the respondent is to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if the respondent continued to violate the conditions of the bail order. No specific finding was made on whether the respondent had actually committed a violation, but the focus shifted to the respondent's stated willingness to comply going forward.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has violated the conditions of the anticipatory bail order dated 11.06.2020 in Crl.P. No. 2419/2020, specifically the condition requiring cooperation with the investigation and appearance before the Investigating Officer when called for further investigation, thereby warranting cancellation of bail? The petitioner argued that the respondent's lack of cooperation, baseless allegations against the Investigating Officer, and delaying tactics to conceal evidence constituted a violation of the bail conditions. The petitioner contended that these actions justified the cancellation of the conditional anticipatory bail. The respondent argued that he was willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and appear when called. He explained his prior complaint against the Investigating Officer was due to alleged ill-treatment, but reiterated his readiness to cooperate with the investigation.