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.
