Gorakh Kupaswami Kakan vs. State Of Maharashtra
Original PDF →Facts
The applicant, Gorakh Kupaswami Kakan, filed an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with summons issued under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The State Tax (Investigation-B), Mumbai, filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that the applicant's statement had been recorded and a complaint had been filed before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai. The respondent indicated that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not required. The Special Public Prosecutor for SGST requested that the applicant appear whenever process is issued. The applicant's counsel, on instructions, agreed to this.
Held
The Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application. While the judgment does not explicitly grant or deny anticipatory bail in the traditional sense, it directs the applicant to remain present before the trial court on December 31, 2022. This direction is intended to enable the trial court to take further steps in the matter, which would likely include considering the issuance of process and any subsequent bail applications. The reasoning appears to be that the applicant's voluntary appearance before the trial court, as agreed upon by his counsel, would address the immediate apprehension of arrest and allow the judicial process to unfold.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the summons issued under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the subsequent filing of a complaint? The applicant argued for anticipatory bail, seeking protection from arrest. The respondent, SGST, through the Special Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the anticipatory bail application outright but requested that the applicant submit himself as and when process is issued by the court. The respondent also stated that custodial interrogation was not required, implying a concession towards the applicant's apprehension.
Sections Cited
Section 70
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ABA 2684.22.doc Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for State-respondent. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2022 P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Special PP appearing for SGST.
This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with various summons issued under section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. My attention is invited to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent by Smt. Vanmathi C., Joint 1 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2022.11.21 19:52:01 +0530
ABA 2684.22.doc Commissioner of State Tax (Investigation-B), Mumbai. In paragraph 12 of the said affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that the statement of the applicant has already been recorded. It is further stated that the complaint against the applicant is filed before the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. It is stated that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.
The request of the learned Special PP appearing for SGST is that as and when process is issued, the applicant has to submit himself. Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions submits that the applicant will make himself available as and when process is issued.
The applicant to remain present on 31/12/2022 before the trial Court so as to enable the trial Court to take further steps in the matter.
The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) 2
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.