The Karnataka High Court has granted 10 days’ interim transit anticipatory bail to six persons facing proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Chennai Zonal Unit, in an alleged GST evasion case involving more than ₹100 crore.
The bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty has observed that limited protection was necessary to enable the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional court in Chennai for regular anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
The petitioners approached the Karnataka High Court apprehending arrest in proceedings initiated by the DGGI under Sections 132(1)(a) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They sought transit/interim anticipatory bail for eight weeks to enable them to move the competent court at Chennai, where the investigation is being conducted.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
According to the prosecution, the accused were associated with M/s. Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in purchasing old and used gold and silver jewellery from walk-in customers through various branches spread across South India.
The DGGI alleged that while carrying on this business, the accused had evaded GST revenue exceeding ₹100 crore. During the investigation, multiple raids were conducted at the business premises in Bengaluru and other locations, and several relevant documents were seized by the investigating agency.
The petitioners submitted that they apprehended arrest before they could approach the competent jurisdictional court at Chennai to seek anticipatory bail.
They therefore requested the Karnataka High Court to grant them transit anticipatory bail, which would merely protect them for a limited period and enable them to seek appropriate relief before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the investigation.
The DGGI opposed the petitions by filing objections.
It argued that there existed a flight risk, contending that the petitioners might evade the investigation if granted interim protection. The department therefore urged the Court to reject the petitions or, alternatively, impose stringent conditions if any interim relief was granted.
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2024) 4 SCC 749, wherein the apex court elaborately discussed the scope and power of courts to grant transit anticipatory bail.
Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court observed that without commenting on the merits of the allegations, limited protection would serve the ends of justice by enabling the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional court at Chennai for appropriate relief.
The High Court granted interim transit anticipatory bail for a period of ten days from the date the petitioners receive a copy of the order.
The protection has been granted solely to facilitate their approaching the competent court at Chennai to seek anticipatory bail in accordance with law. If arrested during this limited period in connection with the DGGI proceedings, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the Court.
The Karnataka High Court directed that the petitioners shall execute a personal bond of ₹1 lakh each, along with two sureties for the like amount. Cooperate fully with the DGGI during the course of investigation. Surrender their passports before the investigating authorities, subject to any orders that may subsequently be passed by the jurisdictional court at Chennai while considering their anticipatory bail applications.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Can GST Arrestees Demand the Charge Sheet at the Time of Arrest? Bombay HC Answers
