Vishal Gupta vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Vishal Gupta, 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 aimed to release prisoners on parole. The list of eligible prisoners was submitted to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. However, 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 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 that there was no condition in the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021, that justified the Magistrate's rejection of the petitioner's application for parole/interim bail. The Magistrate had imposed a requirement for a pending bail application before the High Court or Supreme Court, or a bail rejection order, which was not a part of the HPC's directives. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the Magistrate had failed to properly appreciate the facts and follow the HPC's directions. The Court also noted the State's fair submission that the impugned order was not based on any condition present in 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, thereby violating the spirit and letter of those directions, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned rejection order dated May 10, 2021, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, is liable to be quashed for being contrary to the HPC's directions and for failing to properly appreciate the facts and follow the HPC's directives, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Magistrate's rejection order was passed without properly appreciating the facts and without following the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021. The petitioner asserted that the Magistrate imposed a condition (pending bail application before higher courts or bail rejection order) that was not present in the HPC's directions, and that similarly situated prisoners had been granted interim bail under similar sections of the CGST Act in the past. The petitioner relied on the HPC's directions and the fact that the maximum punishment under the relevant sections was only five years. Respondent's Contention: The State 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 fairly submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and the matter remanded back to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the HPC's directions.