The Calcutta High Court has termed the incident “Very Sad State of Affairs” where the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) arrested the accused, Niaz Ahmed during pendency of anticipatory bail application.
The bench of Justice Jay Sengupta has observed, “It is indeed a very sad state of affairs that two learned advocates would come up before this Court giving two distinct versions of the same proceedings before the Vacation Bench. Whether the respondent authority took advantage of their own wrong by not appearing and later arresting or not, it is indeed an exceptional case where during pendency of an application for anticipatory bail and after adjournment of the same with the records showing non-appearance of the respondent, the respondents would decide to arrest the petitioner pursuant to his appearance upon issuance of summons.”
The petitioner stated that the anticipatory bail application first came up before the Vacation Bench on October 9, 2025, where the respondents allegedly sought an adjournment, though no written order was passed.
On the next date, October 14, the case was called again, but no one appeared for the respondents. The matter was thus adjourned and transferred to the regular Bench. While the bail plea was still pending, the DGGI issued summons requiring the petitioner to appear on October 21. The petitioner complied but was taken into custody on appearing before the authorities—an action which the petitioner described as “contemptuous” and contrary to judicial propriety.
On the other hand, the department denied any wrongdoing. They argued that on October 9, the case was never taken up in the Vacation Court and therefore no question of adjournment arose. It was further submitted that on October 14, communication had been made that the matter should be released to the regular Bench, and although counsel appeared virtually, the appearance was not recorded.
The court noted that two sharply conflicting versions of the same proceedings were presented before the Court. Calling it “a very sad state of affairs,” the Court remarked that it was indeed “an exceptional case” where the arrest occurred during the pendency of the anticipatory bail plea and after adjournment due to non-appearance of respondent counsel.
Since the petitioner had already been taken into custody, the Court held that the anticipatory bail plea had become infructuous and disposed of it accordingly. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Court on November 6, 2025, where the matter shall be considered in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Niaz Ahmed
Case No.: CRM (A) 3234 of 2025
Date: 31/10/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Tarique Quasimuddin
Counsel For Respondent: Rajashree Venkat Kundalia