The Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Shri Vivek Jain

Original PDF →
CRL.P/4362/2019HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01019626201902 August 2021Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR2 pages
For Petitioner: SRI VIKRAM A HUILGOL, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SMT. SUDHA P., ADV. FOR SRI K.J. KAMATH, ADV. - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4362/2019 BETWEEN: THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DGGI, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, NO 112, SP ENCLAVE, ADJACENT TO KARNATAKA BANK, K. H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKRAM A HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI VIVEK JAIN, MALE, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE SHRI RAJINDER MOHAN JAIN, NO.301, VENUS PARADISE, 12TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-52. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SUDHA P., ADV. FOR SRI K.J. KAMATH, ADV. - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ***** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THAT (I) THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 132(1)(B) AND 132(1)(C) OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017; AND (ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE DATED 30.05.2019 IN CR.NO.18/2019 F.NO.INV/DGGI/BZU/GST/12/2018-19 IN SOFAR AS IT ALLOWS THE RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION U/S 437 OF 2 THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 AND ENLARGES THE RESPONDENT ON BAIL (ANNEXURE-A). THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Sri Vikram A. Huilgol, learned counsel for the petitioner is present before the Court physically. So also, Smt. Sudha P, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri K.J. Kamath, through video conferencing.

2.

In this matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking permission for withdrawal of the petition as it does not survive for consideration. Memo is placed on record.

3.

In view of the submission made and the memo filed, the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition as prayed for. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. JUDGE PL*

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