Vikas Gumber vs. Commissioner Of CGST, Anti Evasion Branch, Delhi East

Facts

The applicant, Vikas Gumber, filed a bail application before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside an order dated 13.12.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which rejected his regular bail application. The applicant also sought enlargement on bail in connection with File No. GEXCOM/AE/MISC/1330/2022/Pt-3-AE, arising from alleged offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, the applicant requested specialized medical treatment and isolation as a liver transplant recipient pending the bail application's disposal. The respondent, Commissioner of CGST, Anti Evasion Branch, Delhi East, appeared through counsel. The respondent pointed out that the applicant had wrongly averred in his affidavit that he was in custody since 03.10.2025, when he had actually been granted interim bail on 06.10.2025 and again on 07.11.2025.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues related to bail or medical treatment. The learned counsel for the applicant, acknowledging an inadvertent typographical error in the affidavit regarding the applicant's custody period, sought to withdraw the present bail application with liberty to file it afresh with a modified affidavit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application along with the pending application as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the bail application or the medical treatment request. The issue of the applicant's actual custody period and the veracity of his averments was raised by the respondent but not adjudicated upon due to the withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in connection with alleged offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the rejection of his regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to specialized medical treatment and isolation as a liver transplant recipient pending the disposal of his bail application. (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued for the grant of regular bail and specialized medical treatment, emphasizing his medical condition. The revenue contended that the applicant had made a factual misrepresentation regarding his custody period, having been granted interim bail on multiple occasions. The revenue highlighted the discrepancy in the applicant's averments concerning his period of custody.