Directorate General Of GST Intelligence vs. Harish Kumar Baid

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner intended to withdraw the petitions as the bail period granted to the respondents was expiring soon, rendering the petitions infructuous. However, the petitioner sought a direction that whenever a fresh application for bail is moved by the respondents, notice should be issued to the petitioner/department. The respondents objected to this. The petitioner's counsel then stated they would move an appropriate application before the learned Additional Sessions Court to apprise it of its jurisdiction and to ensure notice is given to the petitioner/department. In light of these submissions, the High Court disposed of the petitions.

Facts

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) filed these petitions challenging anticipatory bail orders dated August 26, 2020, granted by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Rohini District Court, to the respondents, Prakash Chand Golcha and Harish Kumar Baid. The DGGI contended that the ASJ, Rohini, lacked jurisdiction to pass such orders, with jurisdiction lying with the ACMM and/or ASJ, Patiala House Court. Furthermore, the DGGI argued that no notice was issued to them before the bail orders were passed. The initial bail benefit expired on September 26, 2020, and was subsequently extended until October 30, 2020, again without notice to the department. As the extended bail was nearing expiry, the petitioner intended to withdraw the petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini District Court, had the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the respondents under the relevant provisions of law, or if the jurisdiction exclusively lay with the learned ACMM and/or learned ASJ, Patiala House Court? 2. Whether the impugned anticipatory bail orders were validly passed without issuing prior notice to the petitioner/department (Directorate General of GST Intelligence)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the ASJ, Rohini, lacked the proper jurisdiction to pass the bail orders. They also contended that no notice was issued to the department before the orders were granted, which is a procedural lapse. Due to the impending expiry of the extended bail period, the petitioner intended to withdraw the petition but sought a direction for future applications. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents, through their senior counsels, objected to the petitioner's request for directions and the withdrawal of the petition.