Mayank Jain vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Mayank Jain, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with a summoning order dated February 23, 2021, issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the CGST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad. A coordinate bench of the High Court granted interim anticipatory bail on June 23, 2021, noting the absence of criminal antecedents and no expressed apprehension of the applicant fleeing justice. The court also observed that no counter-affidavit had been filed by the State despite multiple opportunities, and the applicant claimed to have complied with the summons. The applicant's counsel submitted that the applicant had cooperated with the proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act and had not misused the interim bail. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer but could not dispute the factual aspects.

Held

The Court held that the interim anticipatory bail order dated June 23, 2021, should be made absolute until the completion of proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The reasoning was based on the applicant's cooperation with the proceedings and the absence of any dispute from the State regarding the factual aspects presented by the applicant. The Court found no reason to deny anticipatory bail given the applicant's conduct and the State's inability to counter the factual submissions. The interim anticipatory bail was made absolute on the terms and conditions previously indicated in the order dated June 23, 2021. The operative direction was to make the interim anticipatory bail absolute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to proceedings initiated under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering his cooperation and lack of misuse of interim bail? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant has cooperated with the proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, and has not misused the liberty of the interim anticipatory bail granted. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial, and if he fails to do so, the State can move an application for cancellation of bail. The applicant's counsel also touched upon the alleged falsity of allegations and circumstances leading to false implication. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the factual aspects of the matter.