Manoj Garg vs. Deputy Director, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Garg, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in a complaint filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint was lodged by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The petitioner was initially granted interim bail by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on March 26, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This interim bail has been extended periodically by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and continues to be in effect. The complaint is pending for recording preliminary evidence. The respondent opposed the prayer for regular bail, arguing that the petition is not maintainable as interim bail granted during COVID-19 has ended as per a Supreme Court order, and the petitioner is currently on extended interim bail.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner is currently on interim bail, which has been extended from time to time and has not been misused. While the Supreme Court's order in Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board indicated the end of interim concessions granted during COVID-19, the Court noted that the petitioner is not in custody. Instead of entertaining parallel proceedings under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the present petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek regular bail before the competent court where the complaint is pending. The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail is maintainable, considering the petitioner is currently on interim bail granted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the respondent's contention that such interim concessions have ended as per the Supreme Court's order in Manish Jain vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner argued that he was granted interim bail on March 26, 2020, which has been continuously extended and is still in effect. He contended that the complaint is pending and sought the concession of regular bail. The respondent argued that the petition is not maintainable because the interim bail was granted during COVID-19, and the Supreme Court has held that such interim concessions have ended. The respondent did not dispute that the petitioner is not in custody and has not misused the interim bail.