Rajesh Goel vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Goel, was arrested under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of the CGST Act. He sought release on parole/interim bail for 60 days, citing directions issued by the High Power Committee (HPC) on April 30, 2021, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, rejected his application on May 10, 2021, holding that no bail application was pending before higher courts and no bail rejection order had been passed. The petitioner contended that this rejection order was passed without proper appreciation of the HPC's directions and that he was entitled to release. The revenue conceded that the impugned order was not based on any condition present in the HPC's directions.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated May 10, 2021, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, lacked merit and was liable to be quashed. The Court found that the Magistrate had imposed conditions for release on parole/interim bail that were not present in the directions issued by the High Power Committee (HPC) on April 30, 2021. The Court noted that its decision was squarely covered by a previous judgment in a similar case, Sh. Suraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. The reasoning was that the Magistrate's order did not align with the HPC's directives, which were intended to facilitate release in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The ratio decidendi is that judicial authorities must strictly adhere to the directions issued by higher committees or courts, especially when such directions are aimed at addressing public health crises, and should not impose extraneous conditions. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, to reconsider the petitioner's application and pass a reasoned order within one week, strictly in accordance with the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for release on parole/interim bail by imposing conditions not stipulated in the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021, thereby violating the spirit of those directions issued in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated May 10, 2021, was passed without properly appreciating the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021, and without following them. - He contended that the Magistrate imposed conditions (pending bail application before higher courts or bail rejection order) that were not present in the HPC's directions. - The petitioner asserted that he was fully entitled to release on parole/interim bail for 60 days as per the HPC's directions. - He also cited a previous judgment of the High Court in a similar case (Sh. Suraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) where the impugned order was quashed. Respondent's Arguments: - The learned Additional Advocate General for the State fairly submitted that there was no condition in the HPC's direction dated April 30, 2021, on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. - The State agreed that the impugned order could be quashed and the matter remanded back to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate for a fresh order in accordance with the HPC's directions.