9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 205 - HC - GSTRevenue appeal agaisnt grant of Anticipatory Bail by the session court - Restraint on the petitioner (revenue) from infringing the fundamental right of life and liberty - At the outset, Mr Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, fairly stated that the remedy availed by the respondent for filing anticipatory bail in the given circumstances was erroneous. HELD THAT - Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case and the concession made by Mr Rohtagi, this Court considers it apposite to set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2020. It is so directed. In addition, it is also directed that in the event, the petitioner or any of its officers propose to take any coercive action against the respondent, the petitioner shall serve a weeks prior notice. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order granting anticipatory bail Analysis: The petitioner, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Indore Regional Unit, filed a petition challenging an order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner had previously approached the Court seeking protection from coercive action based on a notice issued to the respondent to appear before the Additional Assistant Director, Indore. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the Court had granted protection for forty-five days and allowed the petitioner to issue fresh summons after that period. The respondent's counsel acknowledged that seeking anticipatory bail in this scenario was incorrect but expressed concerns about facing coercive proceedings without notice or immediate remedy. The respondent's counsel agreed to setting aside the bail order with the condition that the petitioner must provide a one-week notice before taking any coercive action against the respondent. Considering the circumstances and the concession made by the respondent's counsel, the Court decided to set aside the order granting anticipatory bail and directed the petitioner to serve a week's notice before any coercive action. In conclusion, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order granting anticipatory bail was set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner must provide a one-week notice before taking any coercive action against the respondent.
|
