It cannot be said that the son of the petitioner is in illegal confinement nor can the impugned order, dismissing the application seeking release on default bail be set aside in the present proceedings.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus -- The petitioner sought issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent to release the detenue, namely, Sahil Garg, who has been arrested by the respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 132 of the Act. Further challenged order dated 18.08.2021 vide which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the default bail application and ordered transfer of the detenue, along with file papers, to the Court at Amloh. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 17.06.2021, the respondent searched the premises of the detenue, who is the son of the petitioner, and forcibly took him to their office where he was detained, made to sign some documents, arrested on 18.06.2021. Bail applications seeking his release have been dismissed by the Courts. The respondent counsel submitted that the alleged detenue has floated 16 fictitious firms and is passing on inadmissible ITC of more than Rs. 115 crore, on the strength of invoices issued from the said firms. The court observed that a complaint for offence punishable under Section 132 has been filed before a Judicial Magistrate and the petitioner is in judicial custody. In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the son of the petitioner is in illegal confinement nor can the impugned order, dismissing the application seeking release on default bail be set aside in the present proceedings.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
It cannot be said that the son of the petitioner is in illegal confinement nor can the impugned order, dismissing the application seeking release on default bail be set aside in the present proceedings.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus -- The petitioner sought issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent to release the detenue, namely, Sahil Garg, who has been arrested by the respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 132 of the Act. Further challenged order dated 18.08.2021 vide which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the default bail application and ordered transfer of the detenue, along with file papers, to the Court at Amloh. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 17.06.2021, the respondent searched the premises of the detenue, who is the son of the petitioner, and forcibly took him to their office where he was detained, made to sign some documents, arrested on 18.06.2021. Bail applications seeking his release have been dismissed by the Courts. The respondent counsel submitted that the alleged detenue has floated 16 fictitious firms and is passing on inadmissible ITC of more than Rs. 115 crore, on the strength of invoices issued from the said firms. The court observed that a complaint for offence punishable under Section 132 has been filed before a Judicial Magistrate and the petitioner is in judicial custody. In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the son of the petitioner is in illegal confinement nor can the impugned order, dismissing the application seeking release on default bail be set aside in the present proceedings.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.