Sanjiv Goyal vs. Superintendent (Anti Evasion) CGST Ludhiana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjiv Goyal, is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to Complaint No. COMA/46361/2023 dated 08.06.2023/01.07.2023, filed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The investigation was initiated in 2019 and concluded with the filing of a detailed complaint, which the petitioner's counsel described as akin to a police report. The petitioner argued that the evidence is entirely documentary, he has deep roots in the community, and has been cooperating with the investigating agency since 2019, satisfying the "tripod test" for economic offenses. A Coordinate Bench had previously directed his release on bail upon appearance before the trial court. The petitioner has since appeared and been released on bail.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and made the interim order dated 04.03.2024 absolute. The reasoning was based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, which were not disputed by the respondents. The petitioner had argued that the investigation was concluded, the evidence was documentary, he had deep roots, and had been cooperating with the authorities since 2019, thus satisfying the "tripod test" for economic offenses. The interim order had directed that the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court upon his appearance. Since the petitioner had complied with this order and been released on bail, and the respondents did not contest these facts, the Court found no impediment to making the interim order absolute. The operative direction was to make the interim order absolute, confirming the bail granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with a complaint filed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the nature of the alleged offense and the stage of proceedings? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the investigation, initiated in 2019, has concluded with the filing of a detailed complaint, which is analogous to a police report. They further argued that the entire evidence is documentary, the petitioner has deep roots and has been cooperating with the investigating agency since 2019, thereby satisfying the "tripod test" for economic offenses. Respondents' Arguments: The Superintendent (Anti Evasion), CGST, and the State counsel, on instructions, did not dispute the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.