Dushyant Chaudhary vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Dushyant Chaudhary, 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 response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These directions aimed to release prisoners on parole/interim bail. 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 application on May 10, 2021, stating that no bail application was pending before the High Court or Supreme Court, nor had any bail rejection order been passed, which the petitioner argued was an incorrect interpretation of 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 a condition for rejection that was not present in the directions issued by the High Power Committee (HPC) on April 30, 2021. The reasoning was that the Magistrate's order was based on an incorrect interpretation of the HPC's directions, which did not stipulate that a bail application must be pending before the High Court or Supreme Court or that a bail rejection order must have been passed. The Court agreed with the petitioner that he was entitled to release on parole/interim bail as per the HPC's directions. The ratio decidendi is that judicial authorities must strictly adhere to the directions issued by higher committees or courts, especially in matters concerning prisoner release during a public health crisis, and cannot impose extraneous conditions not contemplated by such directions. 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 parole/interim bail by imposing a condition not stipulated in the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of HPC directions). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner contended that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate incorrectly interpreted the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021, by requiring a pending bail application before the High Court or Supreme Court or a bail rejection order. - He argued that the HPC directions did not contain such a condition and that he was fully entitled to release on parole/interim bail for 60 days as per these directions. - The petitioner also submitted that similar prisoners had been granted interim bail under comparable sections of the CGST Act in the past due to the pandemic. - He asserted that the Magistrate's order was contrary to the HPC's directions and liable to be quashed. Respondent's Arguments: - The State, through the learned Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that there was no condition in the HPC's directions 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.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(1)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 69 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2674 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dushyant Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri Nipun Singh and Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned AGA through vedio conferencing.
At the very outset, learned Senior Advocate submitted that due to mistake, Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is impleaded as respondent no. 3 and further requested that he may be deleted from the array of the respondents, which is not objected by learned AGA.
Accordingly, on his oral request, respondent no.3 stands deleted from the array of the respondents.
Learned Senior Advocate submitted that under the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 01 of 2020, High Power Committee (hereinafter referred to as "HPC") was constituted. The meeting of "HPC" was held on 26.4.2021 and on behalf of "HPC", Registrar General of High Co
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.