Aman Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Aman Singh, proprietor of M/s Khayati Enterprises, who apprehended arrest in connection with summons issued under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for an offence punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act. According to the material placed before the Court, the applicant’s business mainly dealt in scraps and he had fraudulently used tax credit of Rs. 11,08,79,628/- which was availed without supplying any material. During investigation, the department prepared a Panchnama dated 08/03/2025. As the applicant was absent, a notice under Section 70 was issued on 22/04/2025 directing him to give oral evidence. The applicant stated on 24/04/2025 that he could not appear due to medical reasons. Another notice was issued on 25/04/2025, but the applicant did not appear. Apprehending arrest under Section 132 of the CGST Act, he approached the Learned Session Court for anticipatory bail, which rejected the application on the ground that he was not cooperating with the investigation.
Before the High Court, the applicant submitted that he had been summoned for recording his statement under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and apprehended that he would be arrested upon appearing to record his statement. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449. The State opposed the application, submitting that issuance of summons under Section 70 did not, by itself, make the applicant an accused. It was submitted that if, after recording his statement, the concerned authority had reason to believe that arrest was warranted, the applicant could be arrested. The State therefore addressed the applicant’s apprehension of arrest upon appearing for statement recording.
After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the High Court took into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of counsel and the fact that the investigation was still continuing. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The application was accordingly allowed.
The Court directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest, Aman Singh would be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer. The bail was made subject to conditions that the applicant would not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing such facts to the Court; would not act in a manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until disposal of the trial. He and his surety were also directed to submit a copy of the Aadhaar card along with a coloured postcard-size full-size photograph bearing the printed Aadhaar number, to be verified by the trial Court. The applicant was further directed not to involve himself in any offence of a similar nature in future.
Cases Discussed
- Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others (Supreme Court), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with summons issued under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Office of the Commissioner of State Tax, Chhattisgarh (Annexure A-2) for the offence punishable under Section 132 CGST Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the present applicant is proprietor of M/s Khayati Enterprises which mainly deals in scraps and the applicant fraudulently used TAX credit of Rs. 11,08,79,628/- which was availed without supplying any material. During the investigation, the department prepared a Panchnama dated 08/03/2025. After the said Panchnama was prepared, in view of the absence of the applicant, he was given a notice under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the said notice was issued on 22/04/2025, under which he was directed to give oral evidence, in response to this notice, on 24/04/2025, the applicant stated that he was unable to appear due to medical reasons, therefore again a notice was given to the applicant on 25/04/2025 even after which the applicant did not appear. The applicant in apprehension of arrest for an offence under section 132 CGST Act he preferred anticipatory bail application before the Learned Session Court which was rejected on the ground that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation. Hence this anticipatory bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been summoned by the authorities concerned for recording his statement under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is stated that the applicant has apprehension that as soon as the applicant goes for getting the said statement recorded, he would be arrested, hence he has come up before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that simply because the summons have been issued under Section 70 of the C.G. State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 the applicant cannot be per se said to be an accused but if after recording his statement, the authority concerned has reason to believe, then it can arrest the applicant but the apprehension which has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant as soon as he appears for recording his statement there is every likelihood that he will be arrested, hence he moved this anticipatory bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts & circumstances of the present case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material available on record and also considering the fact that investigation is still going on, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Aman Singh, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court.
(b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
(d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
