Shri Mayank Govil vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Shri Mayank Govil (the applicant) under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The application seeks bail in connection with an investigation initiated on February 26, 2021, concerning alleged offenses under Section 132(1) Clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. A summoning order was issued on March 10, 2021. Previously, on May 13, 2021, the Court had directed the applicant to respond to summons and join the inquiry via video conferencing, prohibiting his arrest during the inquiry but restricting him from leaving the country without permission. The applicant's counsel highlighted Sections 69, 70, and 132 of the CGST Act. The Court noted that no summons had been issued to the applicant after the previous order, and the applicant undertook to participate in future inquiries.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail until the completion of the inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The reasoning was based on the applicant's willingness to participate in the inquiry as and when required, and the fact that no summons had been issued to him after the previous court order, indicating no misuse of liberty. The Court found that the applicant could be called for participation in the inquiry as per Section 70 for offenses under Section 132. The ratio decidendi is that an applicant facing investigation under Section 132 of the CGST Act, who cooperates with the inquiry process and has not misused prior judicial leniency, is eligible for anticipatory bail until the inquiry concludes. The operative direction was to grant anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including availability when required, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and not leaving India without court permission. Default in any condition would allow cancellation of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the investigation under Section 132(1) Clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the procedure outlined in Sections 69 and 70 of the Act? Petitioner's Argument: The applicant's counsel argued that Sections 69, 70, and 132 of the CGST Act govern the procedure for inquiry and apprehension. They contended that Section 70 allows for participation in an inquiry for offenses detailed in Section 132. Since no summons were issued after the Court's previous order, the applicant has not misused the liberty granted and is willing to participate in future inquiries as and when required. Revenue's Argument: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents (Union of India and others) regarding the entitlement to anticipatory bail or the interpretation of the relevant sections.