Union Of INDIA vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Held

The Court held that the application for cancellation of bail was rejected. The Court noted that the respondent had provided medical certificates for his non-appearance, which the applicant had admitted without objection. It was also observed that a complaint was filed on 20.12.2023, and there was no record of the trial court granting permission for further investigation. The respondent had informed the applicant about the demand-cum-show-cause notice issued by DGGI, Ghaziabad, and shared the notice with the applicant. Regarding the argument of non-recording of the respondent's statement, the Court held that under Article 20 of the Constitution, the respondent cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, and his failure to answer as wished by the applicant is not a ground for bail cancellation. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court emphasized that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancelling bail, and it should not be done mechanically. Since no such overwhelming circumstances were pointed out by the applicant, the bail granted to the respondent was not cancelled.

Facts

The Union of India (applicant) filed an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to Rakesh Kumar Gupta (respondent) on 30.10.2023. The respondent was arrested by the CGST Officer, Gwalior, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the GST Act, for allegedly making invoices and passing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply. The bail was granted subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and availability to the investigating agency. The applicant contended that the respondent failed to appear for investigation and produce documents despite multiple summons, citing health issues and later stating that the jurisdiction had shifted to DGGI, Ghaziabad, after a private complaint was filed on 20.12.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has violated the conditions of bail by failing to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the CGST authorities, thereby warranting cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent deliberately evaded summons issued by the CGST authorities for tendering statements and producing documents related to the period 22.02.2019 to 31.10.2023. Despite being granted bail with conditions of cooperation, the respondent cited health issues and later claimed the matter was with DGGI, Ghaziabad, after a private complaint was filed. The petitioner relied on Sections 135, 136, and 151 of the CGST Act, asserting their power to issue summons even after a complaint filing. They cited Amal Mubarak Salim Ali & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union of India, Safiya Vs. Government of Kerala & Ors., Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Ors. to support their plea. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that once a complaint was lodged, the applicant lost jurisdiction to summon him without court permission for further investigation. They argued that the CGST matters were being handled by DGGI, Ghaziabad, and the applicant, as a local authority, had lost jurisdiction. The respondent claimed to have appeared on 22.12.2023 and informed the authorities about the filed complaint and the DGGI's involvement. They also argued that non-compliance with discovery orders, as per Order XI Rule 21 of CPC, does not automatically lead to bail cancellation, and that compelling an accused to be a witness against themselves violates Article 20 of the Constitution.