Deepak Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary & Ors. & Ors.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the anticipatory bail applications. Instead, based on the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, Mr. Ravindra Singh, the Court was informed that the petitioners intended to approach the competent court at Ghaziabad and file an appropriate application in accordance with law by March 17, 2021. In light of this undertaking, the Court directed that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioners until March 17, 2021. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that when an applicant for anticipatory bail undertakes to approach the appropriate jurisdictional court for regular bail by a specified date, the High Court may grant a temporary reprieve from coercive action until that date, without prejudice to the merits of the eventual bail application. The bail applications were disposed of in terms of this arrangement.

Facts

The petitioners, Mrs. Shivani Sharma, Deepak Kumar, and Mrs. Alka Gupta, filed applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These applications were in relation to potential arrest for offences allegedly committed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applications were heard by the Delhi High Court. The revenue or State was represented by its Secretary and other respondents. The specific tax periods and the exact nature of the alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act were not detailed in the judgment. The procedural history leading to these applications was not elaborated beyond the filing of the bail applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the event of arrest for alleged offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's argument, as presented by their counsel Mr. Ravindra Singh, was that they would approach the competent court at Ghaziabad and move an appropriate application in accordance with law on or before March 17, 2021. This implicitly suggests a contention that they should be protected from coercive action until they have had the opportunity to seek regular bail. The revenue or State, represented by Mr. Mahendra Singh, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The court did not record any arguments from the revenue or State regarding the merits of the anticipatory bail applications or the alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act.