Vemula Yougander vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, for anticipatory bail at the stage of being summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. This is because no First Information Report (FIR) has been registered, and the power of arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, has not been invoked. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Claodamani Panneshuaran Iyer, has clarified that at the stage of summons, a person summoned cannot invoke Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The only recourse for protection against pre-trial arrest at this stage is to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The criminal petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction if advised.

Facts

The petitioner, Vemula Yougander, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. He was apprehending arrest in connection with proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The DGGI had issued summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requiring the petitioner to appear for examination and produce documents. The petitioner had been appearing before the authorities multiple times. The DGGI had not taken any steps under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the petitioner's repeated appearances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, for anticipatory bail when summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the purpose of examination and production of documents, prior to any arrest proceedings under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner contended that he was being summoned repeatedly and apprehended arrest. The respondent (Union of India, represented by DGGI) did not present any arguments in the judgment. The Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. Claodamani Panneshuaran Iyer was relied upon by the Court.