Shubham Gupta vs. State Of U.P.And Another

Facts

The applicants, Shubham Gupta and Sachin Gupta, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to summoning orders dated March 25, 2021, issued by the Superintendent/Appraiser/Senior Intelligence Officer, Central Goods & Services Tax, Division-I, Bareilly, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Interim anticipatory bail was granted on July 29, 2021. The applicants' counsel failed to appear on subsequent dates, including the present one, despite a last opportunity granted on January 5, 2023. The record indicated that proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act were initiated, requiring the applicants to appear and produce documents. No material was presented to show the applicants had complied with the summons.

Held

The Court held that no case was made out for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the applicants. The primary reason for this decision was the applicants' failure to appear before the CGST authorities as required by the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court found that this non-compliance amounted to a misuse of the liberty of anticipatory bail previously granted. The Court reiterated that while the discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is broad, it must be exercised with circumspection, balancing individual liberty with the interests of society and considering various factors such as the conduct of the accused and the impact on the investigation. Since the applicants did not demonstrate any compliance or provide a valid reason for their non-appearance, the Court concluded that the conditions for granting anticipatory bail were not met. Accordingly, the application was rejected, and the interim order was discharged. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and did not prejudice the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of their failure to appear before the CGST authorities as summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: No specific argument was recorded for the petitioner as their counsel did not appear to press the application. The court noted the absence of the counsel on multiple occasions. Revenue's Argument: The State, through the learned A.G.A., was present. The court's reasoning focused on the applicants' non-compliance with the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, which indicated a misuse of the liberty of anticipatory bail granted. The court considered the general principles governing the exercise of discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, their conduct, and the possibility of them fleeing from justice.