Barkha Bansal Vs. State of U.T (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the statement of any person summoned by the DGGI must be recorded during office hours; the person so summoned is well within his rights to record his statement in the presence of his counsel and any person summoned to the DGGI may request his statement to be recorded under CCTV surveillance.
Facts- The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for directing respondent No.1 to recover the husband of the petitioner, namely Bharat Lal Garg (detenue), from the illegal custody of respondents No.2 and 3 and to hand him over to the petitioner and his family members or, in the alternative, appoint a Warrant Officer for this purpose.
Conclusion- Held that while DGGI officials put the detenue under restraint at 05:46 PM on 05.06.2025, they did not show any urgency in supplying the grounds of arrest to him. As such, the subsequent process of arrest and remand stand vitiated. Moreover, the DGGI officials also failed to supply the detenue with the reasons to believe’ that he has committed an offence under the CGST Act, necessitating his arrest. Such conduct is in clear violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal and Arvind Kejriwal, and would therefore render the arrest of the detenue illegal and non est in the eyes of law.
