Kerala High Court
Kevin Michael vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. No.8391/25 1
2025:KER:71597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8391 OF 2025
O.R. No.06/2025-26/GST OF COMMISSIONERATE OF CENTRAL TAX AND
CENTRAL EXCISE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN CMP NO.2966 OF 2025 OF
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KEVIN MICHAEL
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O. MICHAEL ANTHONY FERNANDEZ
BUTTERFLY GARDEN,
PUTHUKKALAVATTOM TEMPLE ROAD,
NEAR SKYLINE FLAT 24 CARAT,
ELAMAKKARA PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL TAX
ANTI EVASION OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL TAX, CR BUILDING,
B.A. No.8391/25 2
2025:KER:71597
IS PRESS ROAD
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
BY SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2025, THE COURT ON 25.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.8391/25 3
2025:KER:71597
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.8391 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the accused in O.R. No.06/2025-26/GST registered
alleging offence punishable under Section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused operates 'Spa and
Massage Service' in around 21 locations under different names for the
financial year 2018-19 and 2024-25 by the name of 'Ayur Ayurvedic Beauty
Clinic', engaging 100 employees. The prosecution alleges that the accused is
carrying on the business without obtaining any GST registration or paying the
GST, despite exceeding the limits of Rs. 20 Lakhs required for obtaining
registration and had evaded tax to the tune of Rs.8.73,98,064/- and thus
committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 27-07-2025 and
he was granted interim bail by this Court on 17.07.2025.
4. Sri.Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned counsel for the petitioner
2025:KER:71597
submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner
or to his relatives, either in writing or otherwise. It was also submitted that the
arrest was a highhanded arbitrary action and that despite the petitioner
participating in the enquiry proceedings willingly, and even though the details
of all transactions pointed out against the petitioner was available on record,
he was arrested contrary to the statutory requirements and the constitutional
mandate. It was further submitted that since the petitioner was arrested on
27.06.2025, his further detention is not required at all.
5. Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the second respondent and submitted, relying upon the counter
affidavit filed by the investigating officer, that the grounds for arrest were
effectively communicated to the petitioner as contemplated by law and that he
was even explained satisfactorily about those grounds, apart from specifically
informing a person by name Smithin about the grounds for his arrest. The
learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner's wife was also
informed about the arrest, as evident from Annexure R2(a) arrest memo. It
was further submitted that there was no demonstrable prejudice caused to
the petitioner by non-service of the grounds for arrest. According to the
learned counsel, though petitioner's arrest was neither the objective nor the
aim of the respondent, for the purpose of proper investigation, it was required
to confine him, especially since he evaded payment of GST on Spa and
2025:KER:71597
Massage Services. It was also submitted that petitioner had been receiving
such supplies without issuing any invoices, receipt vouchers, and even
without maintaining any transaction ledgers or financial statements, thereby
evading GST to the tune of more than Rs.5 Crores. The learned Counsel
submitted that the interim bail granted ought to be vacated and the bail
application be dismissed
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. The first question to be considered is whether the grounds for arrest
were communicated as contemplated by law. In the decisions in Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India and Others, [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] and Vihaan
Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another (2025) 5 SCC 799, it has been
held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a
mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the
grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner
that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be
communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he
understands. It has also been observed that the grounds for arrest must be
communicated to the near relatives as well. Since those decisions have quite
explicitly laid down the propositions of law, reproduction of the observations
therein would only be a superfluous exercise.
2025:KER:71597
8. However, a reference to certain principles delineated in a recent
decision of the Supreme Court would be beneficial. After analyzing various
decisions including those referred to in the preceding paragraph, the
Supreme Court had, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh [2025 INSC 768] culled out the following principles of law:
"a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the
grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional
condition.
b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Art.21 is
curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it
is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what
grounds he has been arrested.
c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest
must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying
Art.22(1).
d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after
the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of
the arrestee guaranteed under Art.22(1).
e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the
grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest
would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the
person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.
f) If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of
arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate
those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document.
The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed.
2025:KER:71597
g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the grounds of
arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance
of Art.22(1) is on the police authorities.
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the
arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that
necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the
person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make
the mandate of Art.22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which,
such arrest may be rendered illegal."
9. The above principles of law hold the field even now.
10. On 17.07.2025, this Court considered the rival contentions and
prima facie found that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as
contemplated by law to the family members or relatives of the petitioner.
Since the respondents requested for further detailed hearing, this Court
granted an interim bail to the petitioner and posted this case for further
consideration. Even after hearing the petitioner and the respondents at
length, this Court is of the view that the grounds for arrest have not been
communicated as contemplated by law, to any family member or relative as
observed in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra).
Hence, this Court is satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been
communicated as contemplated by law.
11. In the decision in State of Karnataka v. Darshan [2025 INSC 979]
the Supreme Court had observed that when examining procedural lapses,
2025:KER:71597
absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal unless
it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. In
this context, it needs to be mentioned that in Kasireddy Upender Reddy
(supra) the Supreme Court observed that the requirement of informing the
person arrested of the grounds for arrest is not a formality but a mandatory
constitutional requirement. It has further been observed that failure to
communicate the grounds for arrest to the family members will render the
arrest itself as illegal as that is also a mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. The concept of demonstrable prejudice comes into play
when only a procedural violation as in delay in communicating the ground for
arrest arises. A reading of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Darshan
(supra), along with the order of the High Court will reveal that there was no
contention that the grounds for arrest were not communicated and arguments
were advanced on the ground that there was a delay in communicating the
grounds for arrest. Thus the principle of demonstrable prejudice has no
application in the present case.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds for
arrest have not been communicated to the near relative of the petitioner as
contemplated by law.
13. Even otherwise, it is evident that the petitioner was arrested on
27.06.2025 and the interim order of bail was granted on 17.07.2025.
2025:KER:71597
Petitioner had been in custody for 20 days before he was released on interim
bail. The allegations revolve around evasion of GST. Taking into consideration
the nature of offence alleged and also the materials available for completing
the investigation, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not
warranted. The respondents could also not convince this Court about the
need for any further detention of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is entitled to
be enlarged on bail on the said ground as well.
14. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 17.07.2025 is
made absolute. However, since appropriate conditions are required to be
imposed, this bail application is allowed with the following modified
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having
jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer as and
when required and shall also co-operate with the trial of the case.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on
bail.
2025:KER:71597
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the
permission of the jurisdictional court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification
or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be
empowered to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
2025:KER:71597
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8391/2025
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.5.2025 ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER
GIVEN TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
AND CENTRAL EXCISE ON 15.5.2025
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED
27.6.2025 GIVEN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THIS OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 30/06/2025
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.7.2025 PASSED
IN CMP NO. 2966/2025 IN O.R.NO. 06/2025-
26/GST
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 69 OF CGST ACT 2017
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 69 MAKES THE
PROVISION FOR ARREST OF AN ASSESSEE WHO IS
LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED IN TERMS OF SECTION 132
OF THE CGST ACT AND SECTION 132 OF THE ACT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 16.8.2021 IN
SIDDHARTH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [2021 (4)
KLT ONLINE 1028 (SC)
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2022-23
(GST-INVESTIGATION) ON 17.8.2022 ISSUED BY
THE COMMISSIONER (GST-INVESTIGATION WING)
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THIS DECISION DATED 3.10.2023 IN
PANKAJ BANSAL V. UNION OF INDIA [2023 KLT
ONLINE 1844 (SC)]
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 7.2.2025 IN
VIHAN KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA [2025 KLT
ONLINE 1238(SC)
2025:KER:71597
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 23.5.2025 IN
KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY V. STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH [2025 KHC ONLINE 6542]
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 07.04.2025 IN
BABU M V. STATE OF KERALA [2025 (3) KHC 221]
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THIS DECISION DATED 02.04.2025
IN SHEFEEK V UNION OF INDIA [2025 KHC 409]
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 26.03.2025 IN
VIJAY PAL YADAV V. MAMTA SINGH [2025 KHC
ONLINE 7240]
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 25.03.2025 IN
ASHISH KAKKAR V. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH [2025 KHC
ONLINE 7235]
Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 15.05.2024 IN
PRABIR PURKAYASTHA V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
[2024 KLT ONLINE 1503(SC)]
Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 17.07.2023 IN
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. CHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN
IYER AND ORS. [MANU/SC/0992/2023]
Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 28.04.2025 IN
VINEET JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA [2025 KHC
ONLINE 7309]
Annexure A20 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED
30.6.2025 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF THE KOCHI COMMISSIONERATE
Annexure A21 A TRUE COPY OF REMAND REPORT DATED 27/6/2025
IN O.R NO.06/2025-26/GST OF ACJM (EO)
ERNAKULAM
Annexure A22 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 23/7/2025
FORM THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED 27.06.2025
2025:KER:71597
(BEARING DIN-20250658TI000000C13B) CONTAINING
THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE PETITIONER
Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS AND REASONS FOR
ARREST CONTAINING THE ORIGINAL THUMP
IMPRESSION OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
(ECONOMIC OFFENCES)
