Heard Mrs. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned counsel representing opposite party.

Perused the record.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Rahul Agarwal in connection with Case No. DGGI/ARU/Gr.B/A.Raaj/10/2021/519 dated 22.07.2021 under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Mrs. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for applicant contends that only allegation against the applicant is that the sale invoice (ITC) Income-tax Credit Certificate produced by applicant before GST Authority is alleged to be fraud. However, no final adjudication with regard to the nature of above has been made till date. It is then contended that a demand of ₹ 7.36 crore is being raised against the applicant out of which ₹ 1 crore has already been deposited by the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant has been co-operating with the proceeding under the GST Act, inasmuch as, no coercive process has been issued against applicant till date. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during pendency of aforementioned case. However, irrespective of above, there is imminent threat of the applicant being arrested in aforementioned case. It is thus urged that liberty of applicant be protected by extending him the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned counsel representing opposite party has vehemently opposed this application for anticipatory bail. He submits that the offence complained of against applicant is an economic offence and relates to the revenue of the Union. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration.

Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned counsel for opposite party has already filed a short-counter affidavit. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he is directed to file a complete counter affidavit within four weeks. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period.

In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant Rahul Agarwal shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.