Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the arrest of a man by GST Intelligence officials was unlawful, having been effected in gross violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Court declared the continued custody and arrest invalid due to prolonged and unjustified overnight detention, failure to serve arrest grounds at the time of restraint, and non-compliance with statutory procedures under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court further directed compliance with surveillance guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and scheduled the matter for further consideration of alleged obstruction to a Warrant Officer.

The petitions were filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the release of a man, hereinafter referred to as the detenue, alleged to be held in illegal custody by officials of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Chandigarh Zonal Unit. On 04.06.2025, the detenue had entered the office premises of the said respondents. His wife, the petitioner, contended that the detenue had not returned and had not been produced before any competent court within 24 hours.

Also Read: PSU Cannot Deny Partnership Recognition Over Non-Participation Of All Heirs | Supreme Court Raps IOCL For Misreading Policy And Acting Arbitrarily After Partner’s Death

On 05.06.2025, the Court directed the appointment of a Warrant Officer to visit the premises and secure the release of the detenue if found in illegal custody. On that very day, the Warrant Officer, accompanied by local police, recovered the detenue from a room within the office of Anju Sheokand, IRS, where he was being guarded by a departmental peon. The officer recorded that no explanation or documentation for the detention was offered at that point.

The Warrant Officer documented injuries visible on the detenue and noted obstruction in the discharge of his duty by departmental officials. It was further recorded that the officials did not permit recording of the detenue’s statement and snatched papers from the Warrant Officer. Subsequently, an arrest memo was issued at 8:40 PM on 05.06.2025, after the Warrant Officer had attempted to take the detenue into custody.

The respondents filed affidavits from the Additional Director General and the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DGGI, asserting that the detenue was not in illegal detention but was summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act to assist with an investigation involving Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5). They contended that the arrest process began at 5:46 PM on 05.06.2025 with submission of a proposal via the e-office portal and culminated at 6:48 PM with authorization for arrest. The arrest memo was served thereafter.

The respondents further claimed the detenue had arrived voluntarily, stayed for forensic imaging of his laptop data and gave statements under Section 70. They stated that the presence of the detenue did not constitute detention and relied on precedents to distinguish between physical presence and custodial restraint. They argued that no coercion was used and that the detenue was free to leave.

The Warrant Officer, however, stated that upon his arrival at 6:45 PM, no arrest documents were presented and his directions were disregarded. He documented that police personnel refused to act upon his request to take the detenue to the police station. The arrest memo and grounds of arrest were handed over only at 8:40 PM.

The Court directed the Additional Director General to produce all relevant arrest documents and file an affidavit regarding the presence of CCTV cameras in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021) 1 SCC 184. In response, it was stated that CCTV cameras were non-functional due to construction activity.

The Court found this explanation inconsistent, especially in light of fully functioning digital systems used for e-office processes. It rejected the claim that only cameras were affected and held that this indicated a deliberate disabling of surveillance equipment.

The Court framed three central questions:

1. Whether overnight presence of a summoned person in the zonal office could be deemed voluntary.

2. Whether substantial non-compliance with Section 69 invalidated the arrest.

3. Whether the grounds of arrest must be furnished at the point of restraint or only upon formal arrest.

"It is a matter of regret that the requisite record has not been produced in spite of specific directions to this effect."

"This Court finds the explanation regarding the CCTV cameras rather incongruous... It is beyond comprehension how only the cameras were affected."

The Court observed that holding a summoned individual overnight in office premises without formal arrest or documentation amounted to informal custody and deprivation of liberty. It referred to multiple High Court decisions including Mahesh Devchand Gala v. Union of India, Criminal Writ Petition No. 938 of 2024, where it was held that such practice violated fundamental rights, regardless of claimed consent.

"It does not stand to reason that the detenue, a family man, would voluntarily subject himself to such treatment... The illusion of voluntariness renders any consent invalid."

The Court cited Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) SCC (Cri.) 236:

"The policy of the law is that each individual, accused included, by virtue of his guaranteed dignity, has a right to a private enclave where he may lead a free life without overbearing investigatory invasion or even crypto-coercion."

The Court held that when an individual summoned under Section 70 is held beyond office hours without documentation, it amounts to restraint in law. It concluded that the detenue was under restraint at least from 5:46 PM on 05.06.2025, and no grounds of arrest were communicated until 8:40 PM.

The judgment referred to recent Supreme Court decisions in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 449 and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 2 SCC 248, to affirm that arrest powers must be exercised with documented and reasoned satisfaction by competent officers. Mere procedural formalities without substantiation would render the arrest illegal.

"It appears that the opinion has been rendered without following the drill laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court... authorization to arrest granted by the designated officer under Section 69 of the CGST Act [is] devoid of objective standards of reasons and justice."

Further, the Court noted that the requirement under CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 05.11.2019 to affix a Document Identification Number (DIN) to all arrest-related communications was not complied with.

"The failure to follow the drill mandated by law while granting authorization to arrest certainly vitiates the arrest as it suffers from an incurable illegality."

The Court held that the arrest was unlawful. It directed that the arrested person be released and scheduled further proceedings to consider initiation of contempt against the DGGI officials.

The Court directed: "Statement of any person summoned by the DGGI must be recorded during office hours in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Devchand Gala."

"The person so summoned is well within his rights to record his statement in the presence of his counsel. The counsel may be present in the field of vision of the summoned person but not in his hearing range, in terms of the judgment... in Agarwal Foundries."

"Any person summoned to the DGGI may request his statement to be recorded under CCTV surveillance, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini."

Also Read: Lawyer Accused Of Misusing Widow’s Signature To Withdraw MACT Award | Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Inquiry And Condones 8-Year Delay In Appeal

"This Court has undertaken the limited task of assessing the legality of the arrest... It is for the trial Court to determine whether the statement made by the detenue was voluntary or not."

The matter was adjourned to 30.07.2025 for further consideration regarding obstruction caused to the Warrant Officer.

The Additional Director General was further directed:

"To file an affidavit showing complete compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini... and also to deliberate therein why the directions issued by this Court on 02.07.2025... have not [been] complied with."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. R.S. Bagga, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Viren Sibal, Addl. Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh; Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India (through V.C.) with Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Mr. Sourabh Goel, Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Ms. Anju Bansal, and Mr. Deify Jindal, Advocates; Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Ms. Ridhi Bansal, and Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocates for CBIC

Case Title: Barkha Bansal vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Others
Case Number: CRWP-6077-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-36725-2025
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar