Allahabad High Court
Shri Mayank Govil vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 6 February, 2023
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9045 of 2021 Applicant :- Shri Mayank Govil Opposite Party :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Prakash Mathur Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Dileep Chandra Mathur,Manjari Singh,Parv Agarwal Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List is revised. No one is present for the respondents.
Heard Sri Anil Prakash Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for the informant and perused the record.
Rejoinder Affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking Anticipatory Bail in respect to summoning order dated 10.3.2021 in connection with investigation being initiated on 26.2.2021 with reference to a case under Section 132(1) Clause (a) (b) (c) (d) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
On 13.5.2021 this Court passed the following order:
"Heard Sri Anil Prakash Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dileep Chandra Mathur, appearing for opposite parties no. 2 and 3.
Sri Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3 prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the counter affidavit.
In the meantime, applicant shall respond to the summons issued by opposite party no. 3 and will join the enquiry through Video Conferencing. Any document required to be filed shall also be filed online by the applicant.
During the enquiry the applicant shall not be arrested, but he will not leave the country without permission of opposite party no. 3.
List this case on 12th July, 2021."
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to Sections 69, 70 & 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to show the procedure of enquiry as well as apprehension of arrest. From a perusal of Section 70 of the Act, 2017 it is clear that the applicant can be called for participating in enquiry which is being conducted for offence as detailed in Section 132 (a) (b) (c) & (d). Though the notices were issued to the applicant to appear and participate in the enquiry, after which he approached this Court and protection was granted to him. However, after the order been passed by this Court, no summon has been issued to him, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has misused the liberty granted by this Court. The applicant undertakes to participate in the enquiry as and when required.
In view of the above, this Court finds that anticipatory bail application is granted to the applicant till completion of enquiry under Section 70 of the Act, 2017 on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer/ court concerned on the following conditions:
1. that the applicant shall make himself available before the officer/ court concerned as and when required;
2. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the officer/ court concerned shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023 DS