Mohd Sabahuddin vs. CGST Delhi North

Held

The Court held that the impugned order, which noted disobedience/violations of bail conditions, was not sustainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had provided sufficient explanation for the alleged non-compliances, which were considered inadvertent. The petitioner had also undertaken to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and to explain any unavailability of documents. The Court stated that it would be up to the Investigating Officer to form an opinion on the petitioner's cooperation after considering his explanations. If the Investigating Officer felt the petitioner was not cooperating or violating terms, they were at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to abide by the original bail conditions set on February 17, 2022.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Sabahuddin, was granted bail by the learned CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts on February 17, 2022, subject to certain conditions. The respondent, CGST Delhi North, through the impugned order, noted disobedience and violations of these conditions. The petitioner's counsel argued that the violations were inadvertent, particularly regarding dropping a Google pin and providing certain old documents, and apologized on behalf of the petitioner, undertaking to comply. The petitioner's counsel also highlighted that the petitioner had appeared before the investigating officer when called. The investigating agency's counsel acknowledged that there was no point in detaining the petitioner unless there were serious violations and stated no objection to restoring regular bail if the petitioner cooperated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the alleged disobedience/violations of the bail conditions by the petitioner were deliberate and serious enough to warrant cancellation of bail, as per the impugned order passed by the learned CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that there was no deliberate disobedience of bail conditions. Any non-compliance was due to inadvertence, specifically concerning dropping the Google pin and providing old documents, for which time was sought. The petitioner apologized and undertook to comply with the directions. The petitioner contended that a perusal of the impugned order would show no serious violations attributed to him. Revenue's Argument: The respondent, CGST Delhi North, through its counsel, fairly stated that there was no reason to detain the petitioner unless there were serious violations. The respondent indicated no objection to restoring regular bail if the petitioner undertook to cooperate and appear before the Investigating Officer.