Kerala High Court
Nishan Nizar vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:8393
Bail Appl. Nos.737, 668 & 738 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 737 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NIHAL V
AGED 26 YEARS
VARAMANGALATH HOUSE, KARAKKAD, ONGALLUR - II,
KONDURKARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679313
BY ADVS.
PADMANATHAN K.V.
R.SREEJITH
K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
AMMU CHARLES
K.SRIKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
INTELLIGENCE UNIT, TIRUR. STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 676101
SRI MOHAMED RAFIX, SPL GP (TAXES)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..668/2025, 738/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8393
Bail Appl. Nos.737, 668 & 738 OF 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 738 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SUBAIR PT
AGED 42 YEARS
PATTAMMARTHODI HOUSE, KONDOORKARA POST,
KALLADIPATTA VIA PALAKKAD, PIN - 679313
BY ADVS.
PADMANATHAN K.V.
R.SREEJITH
K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
AMMU CHARLES
K.SRIKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
INTELLIGENCE UNIT, TIRUR. STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 676101
SRI MOHAMED RAFIX, SPL GP (TAXES)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..737/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8393
Bail Appl. Nos.737, 668 & 738 OF 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 668 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
NISHAN NIZAR
AGED 36 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER M/S ARMINZAIN ENTERPRISES LLP
GROUND FLOOR GEODENT SQUARE NEAR MEDICAL TRUST
HOSPITAL PALLIMUKKU JUNCTION, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 682016
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
INTELLIGENCE UNIT-1, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX
DEPARTMENT. KERALA, KURELIKKAL BUILDING,
EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682024
SRI MOHAMED RAFIX, SPL GP (TAXES)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..737/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8393
Bail Appl. Nos.737, 668 & 738 OF 2025
4
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.737, 738 & 668 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed apprehending arrest in
cases in which summons issued under Section 69 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act.
2. When these bail applications came up for
consideration, the Special Government Pleader (Taxes)
submitted that the Apex Court observed that anticipatory bail
application shall not be entertained in such cases. The Special
Government Pleader (Taxes) takes me through the judgment of
the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Choondamani
Parmeshwaran Iyer and Another [(2023)115 GSTR 297(SC)].
The relevant portion of the above judgment extracted hereunder:
"16. Thus, the position of law is that if any
person is summoned under Section 69 of the
CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording
of his statement, the provisions of Section
438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908
2025:KER:8393
Bail Appl. Nos.737, 668 & 738 OF 2025
cannot be invoked. We say so as no First
Information Report gets registered before
the power of arrest under Section 69(1) of
the CGST Act, 2017 is invoked and in such
circumstances, the person summoned cannot
invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for anticipatory bail. The only way
a person summoned can seek protection
against the pre-trial arrest is to invoke the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Undoubtedly, this is exactly what the
respondents did in the present case. What
the respondents sought by filing two criminal
applications under Article 226 of the
Constitution before the High Court was the
direction to the appellant herein not to
arrest them in exercise of the power
conferred by Section 69(1) of the GST Act,
2017. This, in essence, is key to prayer for
anticipatory bail. However, as we have
explained aforesaid, at the stage of
summons, the person summoned cannot
invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."
3. In the light of the same, these bail applications are not
maintainable. It is made clear that if there is any other remedy
2025:KER:8393
Bail Appl. Nos.737, 668 & 738 OF 2025
to the petitioners, they are free to agitate the same separately.
With the above observation, these bail applications are
closed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
