Pradeep Jain And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Facts
The applicants, Pradeep Jain and another, sought anticipatory bail in connection with summons/notices dated February 5, 2021, issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Director General of GST, Zonal Unit, Gurugram, read with Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code. A Coordinate Bench of the High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the second applicant (Rishabh Jain) on March 22, 2021, as the first applicant had already been arrested. The order directed the second applicant to comply with the summons and appear for inquiry. The applicant's counsel submitted that proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act are pending, and the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and has not misused the interim bail. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State did not dispute these submissions.
Held
The Court held that the interim anticipatory bail order dated March 22, 2021, should be made absolute until the finalization of the proceedings. The reasoning was based on the applicant's submission that they are cooperating with the investigation and have not misused the liberty granted by the interim order, which was not disputed by the State. The Court found no reason to deviate from the interim arrangement. The operative direction was to make the interim anticipatory bail absolute on the terms and conditions previously indicated in the order dated March 22, 2021. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant (Rishabh Jain) should be made absolute, considering the ongoing proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation. Arguments for the Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant has been cooperating with the investigation/enquiry and has not misused the interim anticipatory bail granted on March 22, 2021. Proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act are still pending. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The learned AGA for the State did not dispute the factual aspects presented by the applicant's counsel.
Sections Cited
Section 70, Section 74, Section 174, Section 175
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5368 of 2021 Applicant :- Pradeep Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Chandra Mathur Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The case has been taken in the revised call.
Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.P. Pathak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. No one appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in connection with summons/notices dated 05.02.2021 issued u/s 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Director General of GST, Zonal Unit, Gurugram read with sections 174 and 175 IPC with the prayer that in the even of arrest applicant may be released on bail.
On 22.03.2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, has passed following order :- "Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has served notice of this applicant on Sri D. C. Mathur, Advocate but who is not pres
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.