Pradeep Kumar Agarwal vs. Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence

Held

The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioners themselves submitted that the offences alleged were bailable in nature. Based on this submission, the Court concluded that an anticipatory bail application was not the appropriate remedy. The ratio decidendi is that if the offences are bailable, a person cannot seek anticipatory bail; rather, they should seek regular bail. The Court did not delve into the merits of the alleged offences or the procedural irregularities claimed by the petitioners, focusing solely on the maintainability of the application based on the nature of the offences.

Facts

The petitioners, Pradeep Kumar Agarwal and Pramod Agrawal, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Jharkhand High Court. They apprehended arrest in connection with Complaint C/1 Case No. 1853 of 2019, registered under various sections of the CGST Act, 2017, including Sections 132 (1)(b), 132 (1)(c), 132 (1)(e), 132 (1)(f), and 132 (1)(k), read with Sections 16, 137, 155, and 135. The case was pending before the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur. The petitioners claimed the alleged offences were bailable and that they had not received any notice, leading to the issuance of a warrant of arrest without their knowledge. They also stated that no process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences under the CGST Act, 2017, are bailable in nature? This issue turns on the interpretation of the provisions related to anticipatory bail and the nature of offences under the CGST Act. The petitioners argued that the offences alleged are bailable, rendering the anticipatory bail application maintainable. They contended that since no notice was served, the warrant of arrest was issued without their knowledge, necessitating the filing of the application. They further pointed out that no process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued. The revenue or State did not record any argument in the judgment.