Case Law Details
Azad Malik Vs DGGI (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Azad Malik, the director of M/s Eco Fly E-Waste Recycling Private Limited, in connection with an ongoing investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Zonal Unit, Meerut. The court’s decision was based on the finding that the plea was premature, as there was no immediate or reasonable apprehension of arrest.
The petitioner, Azad Malik, sought anticipatory bail after receiving summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). His counsel argued that these summons were a form of harassment and that a reasonable apprehension of arrest existed. The petitioner’s legal team referenced a Supreme Court order in the case of Vinay Kant Ameta v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Anr., which had granted him interim protection against arrest in a related matter, conditioned on his cooperation with the investigation. The petitioner claimed to have already appeared before the authorities, provided a comprehensive statement, and submitted all requested documents in February 2024. Therefore, he contended that the new summons lacked justification and that there was no need for his custodial interrogation.
The respondent’s counsel, however, opposed the application, stating that a pre-requisite for granting anticipatory bail—a “reason to believe” that an arrest is imminent—had not been established. The DGGI lawyer highlighted that for an arrest to be made under the CGST Act, a competent authority like the Commissioner or Additional Director General must issue a written approval based on a reason to believe. The court was informed that no such proposal for the petitioner’s arrest had been initiated. It was also argued that the Delhi High Court might not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case, a point that the court ultimately chose not to address given its finding on the prematurity of the application.
Citing the well-established judicial precedent from the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab, the High Court reiterated that a mere fear or suspicion of arrest is not enough to grant anticipatory bail. The apprehension must be reasonable and immediate. The court agreed with the DGGI’s submission, concluding that since there was no formal proposal or written approval for the petitioner’s arrest, his application was pre-mature. As a result, the court dismissed the application.
The order clarified that the ruling did not express any opinion on the merits of the ongoing investigation against the petitioner. The court’s decision was strictly limited to the issue of whether a valid basis for anticipatory bail had been presented at that specific time.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in relation to a summon issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 [hereafter ‘CGST Act’] issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Zonal Unit, Meerut.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case pertain to the ongoing investigation of a case concerning M/s Eco Fly E-Waste Recycling Private Limited, the Director of which is the applicant, under the CGST Act in the course of inquiry of which the applicant had received summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, dated 30.06.2025 and 09.07.2025. It is alleged that the said summons are unwarranted, and are being used as a tool to harass the applicant, thereby giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of arrest to the applicant, necessitating the filing of present application.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in Vinay Kant Ameta v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Anr.: Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No. 34/2024, along with W.P. (Crl.) No. 30/2024 vide order dated 25.01.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant interim protection against arrest, subject to the condition that the parties (including the present applicant) shall join and cooperate with the investigation. It is argued that the applicant had duly appeared before the investigating authorities and made a comprehensive statement in February 2024, along with submission of all requisite documents as sought by the investigating officer. Thus, it is contended that the fresh summons issued by the respondent are devoid of any fresh legal justifications, and the apprehension of arrest emanates from the issuance of such summons. It is submitted that the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and there is no need for any custodial interrogation. Reliance has also been placed on Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors.: 2025 INSC 272
4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposes the present anticipatory bail application on the ground that no real or immediate apprehension of arrest, which is a pre-requisite for the grant of anticipatory bail, has been made out in this case. It is submitted that the summons under Section 70 of CGST Act have been issued in the course of a routine manner of the ongoing investigation against Eco Fly E Waste Recycling Private Limited. It is contended that for affecting arrest of a person for offences punishable under the CGST Act, written approval in the form of reason to believe by the competent authority i.e. Commissioner/ Additional Director General, DGGI is required; however, so far, there is no such proposal. It is further argued that the present bail application is also not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as the case is being investigated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Meerut Zonal Unit which is under DGGI, Meerut Zone.
5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. At the outset, it is apposite to note that Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, which is pari materia to Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973, is a discretionary power and provides the applicant protection from arrest if it is found that he has a “reason to believe” that he might be arrested. What qualifies as a reasonable apprehension, however, is a purely factual inquiry, contingent on facts and circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, it is trite that a mere suspicion or fear of arrest is not sufficient [Ref: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab: 1980 SCR (3) 383].
7. During the course of arguments, and also in the reply filed before this Court, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent drew this Court’s attention to the fact that for affecting arrest of an individual for commission of any offence punishable under the CGST Act, written approval in the form of reason to believe by the competent authority i.e. Commissioner/ Additional Director General, DGGI is required; however, so far, there is even no such proposal in respect of the present applicant.
8. Given the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the respondent and holds that the prerequisite for affecting arrest of an individual for commission of any offence punishable under the CGST Act, written approval in the form of reason to believe by the competent authority i.e. Commissioner/ Additional Director General, DGGI is required; however, so far, there is even no such proposal in respect of the present applicant.
9. In view of the above, the application being pre-mature cannot be allowed.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent had also raised the issue of jurisdiction in this case. However, since this Court has held that the application at this stage is pre-mature, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the issue of jurisdiction has not been dealt with in the present order.
11. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
12. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
Author Bio
