Niaz Ahmed vs. Additional Director, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence And Anr.

Held

The Court noted the conflicting versions presented by the learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent regarding the proceedings before the Vacation Bench. It acknowledged that the anticipatory bail application had become infructuous due to the petitioner's arrest during its pendency. The Court did not definitively rule on whether the respondent authority had taken advantage of their own wrong or committed contempt. However, it recognized the exceptional nature of the situation where an arrest occurred during the pendency of an anticipatory bail application after adjournments attributed to the respondent's non-appearance. The Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application CRM (A) 3234 of 2025 without further orders, but granted the petitioner liberty to pray before the learned jurisdictional Court on the next date of hearing, November 6, 2025, for consideration in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, Niaz Ahmed, filed an application for anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal proceeding initiated by the DGGI, which resulted in a complaint case under Section 132 of the CGST Act. The petitioner's anticipatory bail application was heard by the Vacation Bench on October 9, 2025, and then on October 14, 2025. The petitioner alleges that the respondent sought an adjournment on the first date, and on the second date, no one appeared for the respondent, leading to an adjournment and the matter being placed before the regular Bench. During this pendency, the CGST authority issued a summons, and upon the petitioner's appearance, he was taken into custody, rendering the anticipatory bail application infructuous. The respondent denies these allegations, stating the matter was not called on October 9, and on October 14, a prayer was made to release the matter to the regular Bench, with the respondent's advocate appearing virtually.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority acted in contempt of court by arresting the petitioner during the pendency of his anticipatory bail application, especially after the respondent's alleged non-appearance and subsequent adjournment of the matter to the regular Bench? (Question of law and fact, turning on the conduct of the respondent and the procedural history of the anticipatory bail application). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the respondent's actions, particularly arresting him after his appearance pursuant to a summons while his anticipatory bail application was pending and adjourned due to the respondent's non-appearance, constitute a contemptuous act. They argue that the respondent took advantage of their own wrong. Respondent's arguments: The respondent denies the petitioner's version of events, stating that the matter was not called on October 9, and on October 14, a prayer was made to release the matter to the regular Bench. They assert that the respondent's advocate appeared virtually and that the adjournment was on the petitioner's advocate's prayer. They deny any deliberate non-appearance or attempt to circumvent the anticipatory bail proceedings.