Shubham Chopra And Another vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, (Dggi), Zonal Unit, Ludhiana

Facts

The petitioners, Shubham Chopra and another, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail. This petition arose from a complaint filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana, under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners had joined the investigation on multiple occasions and were subsequently summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, following the filing of the complaint. They contended that their custodial interrogation was not required and expressed willingness to cooperate with the proceedings. They also pointed out that a co-accused, Sanjiv Kumar, had been granted anticipatory bail.

Held

The Court granted interim bail to the petitioners on 29.05.2024, directing them to join the investigation and be released on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. These conditions included making themselves available for interrogation, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and not leaving the country without prior permission. The petitioners complied with this order by surrendering and being released on interim bail. On 14.08.2024, the Court noted that the petitioners had surrendered and were released on interim bail in deference to the earlier order. Consequently, the Court found no further orders to be required and disposed of the petition. The reasoning for granting interim bail was based on the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation and the grant of bail to a co-accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC in connection with the complaint filed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had cooperated with the investigation by joining it on several occasions. They contended that their custodial interrogation was unnecessary as they had been summoned by the Magistrate. Furthermore, they highlighted that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, suggesting parity. They were willing to join further proceedings. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, was granted time to file a reply. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the provided text.