Abhishek Pathak vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The applicant, Abhishek Pathak, proprietor of Samridhi Trading, received summons dated March 3, 2025, and March 20, 2025, issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Raipur. The summons relate to an inquiry concerning his firm, which is alleged to be non-existent. The applicant, originally from District Shahjahanpur, filed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking transit anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest upon appearance. He argued it would be difficult to approach the competent court in Chhattisgarh for pre-arrest bail.
Held
The Court dismissed the application for transit anticipatory bail. The primary reason for dismissal was that the applicant, who claimed innocence, had not appeared before the Court for the hearing and the application was based on instructions. The Court reiterated the settled law that the concession of transit anticipatory bail is an exceptional one, granted only when denial would result in prejudice to the accused. It is not a routine concession and should be sought from the court of competent jurisdiction where the case is being investigated. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Priya Indoriya Vs. State of Karnataka and others. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the GST inquiry itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to transit anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given his apprehension of arrest in a GST inquiry. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argued that he is entitled to transit anticipatory bail because he is a resident of District Shahjahanpur and it would be difficult for him to approach the court of competent jurisdiction in Chhattisgarh to seek pre-arrest bail. He apprehended detention upon appearing before the GST authorities. Revenue's Argument: The State did not dispute that the applicant was not present in court for the hearing and the application was filed based on instructions. The Court noted that the plea for pre-arrest bail should ordinarily be raised before the court where jurisdiction lies, and transit anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Sections Cited
Section 70, Section 482
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71780 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2921 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhishek Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Mishra,Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicant–Abhishek Pathak has filed this application under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of transit anticipatory bail, as he apprehends arrest in the wake of summons dated 3.3.2025 and 20.3.2025, issued under Sections 208, 210, 229, 267 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 by Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence Raipur (C.G.). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a proprietor of Samridhi Trading situated at Gudhiyari, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) since 2024, who has received summons dated 3.3.2025 and 20.3.2025 issued under Section 70 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST Act, 2017') by Biju Abraham, Senior Intelligence Officer pursuant to an inquiry in connection with GST inquiry under CGST Act, 2017. Learned counsel submits that the proprietorship firm M/S Samridhi Trading, Raipur is alleged to be a non-existent firm and the applicant is being summoned for the said GST inquiry and he apprehends that as and when he appears, he may be detained in custody. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the applicant is originally resident of District Shahjahanpur, therefore, it is difficult for him to approach the court of competent juri iction within the State of Chhattisgarh to seek the concession of pre- arrest bail. He prays that the applicant be extended the concession of transit anticipatory bail. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the application, as during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is not present in the Court to attend the hearing of this case and the application has been filed on the basis of the instructions given by the accused- applicant. Once, the applicant has claimed to be innocent, then the plea for pre-arrest bail ordinarily should be raised before the court where the juri iction lies. By now, it is settled law that the concession of transit anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances where the denial of such a concession may result in prejudice to the accused-applicant. The limited concession cannot be granted in a routine manner and in this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Order Date :- 5.5.2025 P.S.Parihar POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.