The Calcutta High Court has granted the bail to the person who was arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act on the ground that the arrest memo was attested by driver instead of family members or neighbours.
The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh has observed that the arrest memo was attested by a driver who is neither a member of the petitioner’s family, nor a person of the locality from where the arrest is made. Therefore the arrest is in violation of the instruction issued by the authority as well as the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu.
The petitioner has been in custody since 1st February, 2025 despite having appeared before the authority on 31st January, 2025 and cooperating in investigation. The arrest of the petitioner is in violation of section 36 of the BNSS as well as the instruction dated 17th August, 2022 as amended on 13th January, 2025.
The memorandum of arrest is not attested by a member of the petitioner’s family or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made.
The arrest has been made under section 69 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with section 132 (1) (i) and section 132 (5) of the GST Act. The arrest memo demonstrates that the ground of arrest was explained to the petitioner and his relative was also informed about the arrest.
The arrest has been witnessed by one Om Prakash Kumar, driver who is a resident of Beliaghata Road, Tangra.
The department contended that absence of endorsement of a local respectable person in the arrest memo may at best be considered to be a mere irregularity and cannot vitiate the arrest proceedings.
The court held that since the arrest of the petitioner is in violation of the instruction issued by the authority as well as the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu, such lapse on the part of the opposite party cannot be termed as a mere irregularity and in fact vitiates the arrest, moreso, since no explanation has been given by the arresting officer for not complying with the said direction.
The court held that since the arrest itself is bad in law, the petitioner deserves an order in his favour.
The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom should be local, to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to condition that the petitioner shall meet the investigating officer twice a week till submission of charge sheet.
Case Details
Case Title: Vishal Kumar Arya Versus Union of India
Case No.: C.R.M. (SB) 19 of 2025
Date: 18.02.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Avratosh Majumder
Counsel For Respondent: Adv. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee
Read More: Tuhin Kanta Pandey Appointed as SEBI Chairman: A New Era for India’s Capital Markets
