Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Indore Regional Unit, Madhya Pradesh vs. Mukesh Garg

Held

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2020, by which the respondent was granted anticipatory bail. This decision was based on the concession made by the respondent's counsel that the remedy of anticipatory bail was erroneously availed. The Court also directed that in the event the petitioner (DGGI) or its officers propose to take any coercive action against the respondent, a one-week prior notice shall be served upon him. This direction was issued considering the peculiar circumstances and the respondent's apprehension of facing coercive proceedings without immediate remedy. The petition was allowed with these directions.

Facts

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Indore Regional Unit, filed a petition challenging an order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to Mukesh Garg. Earlier, on 07.08.2020, Mukesh Garg had filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging a notice dated 20.06.2020 issued by the DGGI, Indore, summoning him to appear and produce documents. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court had granted Garg protection from coercive action for forty-five days and permitted the DGGI to issue fresh summons thereafter. The DGGI contended that Garg was forum hunting by filing for anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent (Mukesh Garg) was forum hunting by filing for anticipatory bail when a writ petition concerning the same matter was pending before this Court, thereby challenging the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent was forum hunting by approaching the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail while a writ petition was already pending before the High Court challenging the notice issued by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to impugn the order granting anticipatory bail. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel conceded that the remedy of anticipatory bail was erroneously availed. However, the respondent expressed apprehension of facing coercive proceedings without notice. The respondent agreed to the impugned bail order being set aside, provided the petitioner issued a one-week notice before taking any coercive action.