Vaibhav Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Vaibhav Sharma. The reasoning was based on the applicant's readiness to appear before the authority and cooperate with the investigation, coupled with the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal history. The Court explicitly stated that these facts were sufficient to grant anticipatory bail without making any observations that could prejudice the outcome of the case. The operative direction was that in the event of arrest or appearance before the learned Trial Court in connection with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties. Specific conditions were imposed, including regular appearance, non-tampering with evidence, and non-intimidation of witnesses.

Facts

The applicant, Vaibhav Sharma, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. This apprehension arose from a notice dated September 27, 2023, issued by the Superintendent (A.E/T.R.C) CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow. The notice required the applicant's attendance to provide evidence and produce specified documents. The applicant's affidavit highlighted that another trader, with whom the applicant had transacted, received a similar notice, was taken into custody, and later granted bail after 20 days. This precedent fueled the applicant's fear of arrest upon appearing before the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the notice issued by the CGST and Central Excise authorities and the apprehension of arrest, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? The petitioner argued that the notice issued by the CGST and Central Excise authorities, coupled with the experience of another trader who was arrested and subsequently granted bail, created a reasonable apprehension of his arrest. The petitioner expressed readiness to cooperate with the investigation. The revenue, represented by Sri Dipak Seth, counsel for CGST and Central Excise, opposed the bail application, contending that an investigation was necessary to ascertain the applicant's guilt and bring it to light.