Jagriti Garg vs. Directorate Generalof Goodsand Services Tax Intlligence

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's son, Sahil Garg, was arrested on June 18, 2021, under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, and a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act had been filed before a Judicial Magistrate. The Court noted that the application filed by Sahil Garg under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. seeking default bail was dismissed by order dated August 18, 2021. Furthermore, a revision challenging this order was withdrawn from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on September 8, 2021. The Court also observed that a previous petition (CRWP-6201-2021) filed by the petitioner with a similar prayer had been withdrawn on July 20, 2021. In light of these facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that Sahil Garg could not be considered to be in illegal confinement, nor could the impugned order dismissing the default bail application be set aside in the present proceedings. The petition was found to be without merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Jagriti Garg, filed a writ petition seeking the release of her son, Sahil Garg, who was arrested on June 18, 2021, for alleged offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner contended that Sahil Garg had not been released despite the expiry of 60 days from the date of his first remand, as per Section 167(2) read with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She also challenged the order dated August 18, 2021, by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the default bail application and ordered the transfer of the detenue. The respondent, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, alleged that Sahil Garg was the mastermind behind floating 16 fictitious firms and passing inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of over Rs. 115 crore through bogus invoices without actual supply of goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detenue, Sahil Garg, is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given that 60 days have allegedly expired since his first remand without the filing of a charge sheet or final report, thereby violating his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the default bail application by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was contrary to the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on the fact that the period of 60 days for filing the charge sheet had expired, entitling the detenue to default bail. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that Sahil Garg had committed a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 132(1)(b)(i) of the CGST Act. They asserted that a complaint under the CGST Act had been filed, and further investigation was required to uncover the full extent of the alleged scam involving numerous firms controlled by Sahil Garg. Therefore, his custody was not illegal.