Directorate General Of GST Intelligence vs. Prakash Chand Golcha

Held

The Court noted that the bail granted to the respondents was extended until October 30, 2020, and was set to expire. The petitioner, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), expressed its intention to withdraw the petitions as they would become infructuous. However, the DGGI sought a direction from the High Court that whenever a fresh application for bail is moved by the respondents, notice should be issued to the department. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. The Court, in view of the petitioner's submission to move an appropriate application before the trial court, disposed of the petitions.

Facts

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) filed two petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging anticipatory bail orders granted to Prakash Chand Golcha and Harish Kumar Baid by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Rohini. The DGGI contended that the ASJ, Rohini, lacked jurisdiction to pass these orders, asserting that jurisdiction lay 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 granted expired on September 26, 2020, and was subsequently extended to October 30, 2020, with no notice issued to the department during the extension period. As the extended bail was nearing expiry, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petitions, requesting a direction for notice to be issued to the department on any future applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, had the jurisdiction to pass the anticipatory bail orders in question, or if jurisdiction lay with the learned ACMM and/or learned ASJ, Patiala House Court, as contended by the petitioner (DGGI)? 2. Whether the anticipatory bail orders were validly passed without issuing notice to the petitioner (DGGI), as argued by the petitioner? Contentions of the Petitioner (DGGI): The petitioner argued that the ASJ, Rohini, lacked the proper jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. They also contended that the bail orders were passed without issuing notice to the department, which is a procedural irregularity. As the bail period was expiring, the petitioner intended to withdraw the petitions but sought a direction for future applications to include notice to the department. Contentions of the Respondents (Prakash Chand Golcha and Harish Kumar Baid): The learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents objected to the petitioner's request for directions and withdrawal.