Navin Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court acknowledged that the applicant was on interim bail with a condition to surrender within 60 days, which was not complied with, leading to the rejection of the bail application by the lower courts on grounds of maintainability. However, considering the applicant's submission that he is ready to surrender and the prevailing circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic), the Court directed that the applicant should move a surrender application along with the bail application. The Court further ordered that instructions would be sought from the concerned department without taking the applicant into custody, and the surrender application and bail application would be decided together. The Court did not decide the merits of the bail application but provided a procedural path for its consideration. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a party is ready to comply with procedural requirements and relies on judicial pronouncements for expeditious consideration, a High Court can direct for joint consideration of surrender and bail applications, even if lower courts have rejected bail on procedural grounds.

Facts

The applicant, a businessman, sought regular bail in Case No. 557 of 2021, under Section 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, before the Allahabad High Court. The applicant had been granted interim bail on July 19, 2021, with a condition to surrender within 60 days. The applicant claimed non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court rejected the bail application on April 16, 2026, citing the applicant's absence. The Sessions Judge also rejected the bail application on September 5, 2026, on the ground that the accused was not in custody. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was ready to surrender and requested consideration of the bail application expeditiously, citing the case of Satender Kumar Antil.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant's bail application is maintainable given the applicant's failure to surrender within the stipulated period and not being in custody, as held by the trial court and Sessions Judge? 2. Whether the applicant's bail application should be considered on merits, despite the procedural objections, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant's readiness to surrender, referencing the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another? Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued that non-compliance with the surrender condition was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant is a businessman and his bail application should be considered expeditiously, relying on the precedent set in Satender Kumar Antil. The applicant is ready to surrender before the court concerned. Contentions of the Revenue (State and DGGI): The judgment records no specific arguments from the State or DGGI regarding the maintainability of the bail application or the merits of the case. However, the trial court and Sessions Judge had rejected the bail application on grounds of maintainability due to the applicant not being present and not being in custody.