Anshul Agarwal vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Anshul Agarwal, was arrested under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of the CGST Act, with a maximum punishment of five years. 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. These directions were aimed at releasing prisoners to mitigate the spread of the virus. The Jail Superintendent prepared a list of eligible prisoners, which was submitted to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The Magistrate rejected the petitioner's request on May 10, 2021, stating that no bail application was pending before the High Court or Supreme Court, nor had any bail been rejected, which the petitioner argued was not a condition 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 no condition within the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021, that required a pending bail application before the High Court or Supreme Court, or a prior bail rejection order, as the basis for rejecting the petitioner's request for parole/interim bail. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the Magistrate had failed to properly appreciate the facts and follow the HPC's directions. The reasoning was that the Magistrate's order was based on an extraneous condition not present in the HPC's directives, which were issued to address the widespread novel coronavirus. The ratio decidendi is that judicial authorities must strictly adhere to the specific directions issued by higher committees or courts, especially during emergent situations, and cannot impose additional conditions not contemplated by those directives. 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, correctly interpreted and applied the directions issued by the High Power Committee (HPC) on April 30, 2021, concerning the release of prisoners on parole/interim bail for 60 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically regarding the condition of a pending bail application or prior bail rejection order. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate erred by imposing a condition (pending bail application or prior bail rejection) that was not stipulated in the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021. They argued that the Magistrate failed to appreciate the facts and follow the HPC's directives, which entitled the petitioner to release on parole/interim bail. The petitioner also cited previous instances where similarly situated prisoners were granted interim bail under similar sections of the CGST Act due to the pandemic. Respondent's arguments: The State, through the Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that the impugned order was not based on any condition present in the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021. They agreed that the order should be quashed and the matter remanded back to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate for a fresh decision strictly in accordance with the HPC's directions.