Aman Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Aman Singh, proprietor of M/s Khayati Enterprises, is facing investigation for allegedly fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 11,08,79,628/- without supplying any material. The State Tax Department issued a Panchnama on March 8, 2025. Subsequently, notices were issued to the applicant under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on April 22, 2025, and April 25, 2025, to record his oral evidence. The applicant failed to appear, citing medical reasons for the first notice and not appearing after the second. He apprehended arrest for an offense punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act and filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected for non-cooperation. This led to the present anticipatory bail application before the High Court.

Held

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the peculiar facts and circumstances, the submissions of both parties, and the fact that the investigation was ongoing. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The applicant, Aman Singh, was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The conditions for bail included not inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts, not acting prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial, appearing before the trial court on every date, submitting identity documents for verification, and not involving himself in similar offenses in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given his apprehension of arrest in connection with summons issued under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for an offense punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant argued that he has been summoned for recording his statement under Section 70 and apprehends immediate arrest upon appearance. He relied on the Apex Court judgment in Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 449). Respondent/State: The State contended that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 does not automatically make the applicant an accused. Arrest is permissible only if the authority has reason to believe so after recording the statement. The apprehension of immediate arrest was contested.