Ajeet Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Held

The Court granted interim protection to the applicant. It directed the applicant to appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on or before September 10, 2021. The Court further stipulated that the matter would be adjudicated and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with the law. Crucially, the Court ordered that no coercive action would be taken against the applicant in connection with the summoning order dated June 22, 2021, until September 10, 2021. This decision was based on the applicant's stated personal circumstances and his undertaking to cooperate with the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that genuine personal hardships, such as the death of a close family member, warrant consideration for interim protection from coercive action while ensuring eventual compliance with legal procedures.

Facts

The applicant, Ajeet Singh, moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. This was in connection with a summoning order dated June 22, 2021, issued by the Superintendent/Appraiser/Senior Intelligence at Central Goods and Services Tax, Ghaziabad. The summoning order was issued under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant's counsel submitted that the applicant could not participate in the investigation due to his father's demise and assured cooperation after performing the last rites. The Court directed the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before September 10, 2021, and stated that the matter would be adjudicated according to law. No coercive action was to be taken against the applicant until September 10, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with a summoning order issued under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering his inability to participate in the investigation due to personal reasons? The applicant argued that his absence from the investigation was due to his father's death and the subsequent performance of last rites. He expressed his readiness to cooperate fully with the investigation upon his return. The applicant relied on the principle that personal difficulties should be considered when assessing the need for anticipatory bail. The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., did not record any specific arguments against the grant of interim relief, but the proceedings indicate their presence and opposition to the application in principle, as is typical in such cases.