The Patiala House Court has ruled that mere presence during a search operation does not constitute arrest, rejecting a defense challenge based on delayed production and sending the accused to 13-day judicial custody in a case involving alleged Rs. 44.37 crore GST evasion.

The bench of Akanksha Garg (Metropolitan Magistrate) has observed that the panchnama nowhere mentions that the accused was arrested at 12:55 PM on 31.07.2025. The accused cannot be deemed to have been arrested merely because the premises was being searched by the I0. Moreover, it is not a case where the accused has been taken from his house and kept by the agency in some place of custody of the department.

The arrest was challenged on constitutional grounds by the defense, which argued that the accused had not been produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution. According to defense submissions, the panchnama indicated that proceedings began at 12:55 PM on July 31, 2025, and concluded around 1:50 PM on August 1. The accused, however, was presented before the court only at 5 PM on August 1.

Relying on landmark judgments such as Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma and Ashak Hussain Allah Detha vs. The Assistant Collector of Customs, the defense claimed that the accused was effectively under arrest from the time officers entered the premises and that the 24-hour custody rule was breached.

The DGGI rebutted this argument, stating that the accused was found hiding in a car on the premises during a search operation, and that arrest was made only after incriminating material was discovered. The arrest memo recorded the arrest time as 12:11 PM on August 1, 2025.

The court accepted the department’s contention, holding that the accused “cannot be deemed to have been arrested merely because the premises was being searched by the IO.” It noted that the panchnama made no mention of any arrest on July 31, and the accused was not taken into exclusive custody until after the recovery of material evidence.

“In my opinion, arrest is found to be legal,” stated Duty Metropolitan Magistrate Akanksha Garg, adding that the nature of the alleged tax evasion was grave and serious.

The court remanded the accused to judicial custody till August 14, 2025, and directed that the bail application be listed before the concerned court.

Read More: Prabhat Kumar PADG Leads NACIN’s Push for Fraud-Proof GST Registration via AI