Sarvesh Singh vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary & Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the applications were filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest for offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. After hearing arguments, the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Deepak Prakash, submitted that the petitioners would approach the competent court at Ghaziabad and move an appropriate application in accordance with law within 10 days from the date of the order, i.e., on or before March 15, 2021. In view of this submission, the Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners until March 15, 2021. The applications were disposed of in terms of this arrangement. The Court did not decide on the merits of the anticipatory bail application itself, but rather on the undertaking given by the petitioner.

Facts

These are two applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioners, Sarvesh Singh and Manoj Sharma. The bail is sought in the event of their arrest for alleged offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners are represented by Mr. Deepak Prakash, and the respondents, Union of India and others, are represented by Mr. Gaurav Kanth and Mr. Ravi Prakash. The matter was heard through video conferencing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences allegedly committed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners, through their counsel Mr. Deepak Prakash, sought anticipatory bail. While the judgment does not detail specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the merits of the alleged GST offences, the application itself signifies a contention that the circumstances warrant such relief. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, Union of India and others, represented by Mr. Gaurav Kanth and Mr. Ravi Prakash, were present. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in opposition to the grant of anticipatory bail.