Mahendra Kumar Jaiswal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted that a complaint has already been submitted before the jurisdictional Court, and the case is pending. The Court observed that since the learned Judicial Magistrate is seized of the case and has issued notice, the petitioner, upon appearance before the jurisdictional Court, shall be dealt with according to Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 91 of BNSS). The Court further stated that any requirement concerning the petitioner's investigation can be addressed by the prosecuting or investigating agency advancing relevant prayers before the jurisdictional Court. Consequently, the Court found no further order to be necessary in the present application for anticipatory bail, as the complaint has already been filed. The application was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Jaiswal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation by the HQ Anti-Evasion Unit, Haldia CGST & CX Commissionerate. The investigation pertains to alleged offenses under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A complaint has been filed before the jurisdictional Court, being Case No. MISCS-50/2026, which is pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta. The petitioner had previously appeared before the CGST authorities on two occasions as per this Court's directions. The CGST authorities acknowledged these submissions but stated that further investigation is ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (or Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) in light of the ongoing investigation and the filing of a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, represented by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, submitted that a complaint has already been filed before the jurisdictional court, and the case is pending. He also highlighted his prior compliance with the court's directions to appear before the CGST authorities. Revenue's Argument: The CGST authorities, represented by Mr. Kaushik Dey, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the filing of the complaint and his appearances. However, they submitted that further investigation is continuing in respect of the case.