Anshul Goyal v. State Of U.P. And Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 34; GST statutory provision - Section 46(1); GST statutory provision - Section 420; GST statutory provision - Section 438

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: General is of not entertaining the anticipatory bail of the applicant on the count that non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on Operative disposition: Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 261], in Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC 720 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1045], while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order [Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998, decided on 21-7-1998 (Bom)] of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, on such conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court; and/or may further be pleased to grant protection to the applicant, either, by way of interim order of anticipatory bail till the disposal of the present application; and / or any other suitable order which this Hon'ble may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss."

"5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This is necessary to be stated because the learned Judge in the High Court unfortunately fell into an error in mixing up all the considerations, as if all the three become relevant in the present situation.

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

23. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench reiterated that while deciding applications for anticipatory bail, courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case.

24. The time-tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devastating and irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on consideration of material information gathered by the Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest". Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under Section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Section 46(1) or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation.

"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like

37. Having considered the nature of allegations, material on record and the settled legal principles on grant of anticipatory bail, we are of the view that, howsoever hard or harsh it may be, the High Court ought to have refrained itself from extending protection against arrest to Respondent No. 1 in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the CrPC."

83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order [P. Chidambaram v. CBI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703]. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.”

Operative decision and relief

82. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 261], in Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC 720 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1045], while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order [Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998, decided on 21-7-1998 (Bom)] of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Anshul Goyal v. State Of U.P. And Another concerns issue and context: general is of not entertaining the anticipatory bail of the applicant on the count that non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on operative disposition: referring to dukhishyam benupani v. arun kumar bajoria [dukhishyam benupani v. arun kumar bajoria, (1998) 1 scc 52 : 1998 scc (cri) 261], in directorate of enforcement v. bher chand tikaji bora [directorate of enforcement v. bher chand tikaji bora, (1999) 5 scc 720 : 1999 scc (cri) 1045], while hearing an appeal by the enforcement directorate against the order [bherchand tikaji bora v. state of maharashtra, criminal application no. 2140 of 1998, decided on 21-7-1998 (bom)] of the single judge of the bombay high court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the supreme court set aside the order of the single judge granting anticipatory The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 12724 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: General is of not entertaining the anticipatory bail of the applicant on the count that non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on Operative disposition: Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 261], in Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC 720 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1045], while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order [Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998, decided on 21-7-1998 (Bom)] of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 34; GST statutory provision - Section 46(1); GST statutory provision - Section 420; GST statutory provision - Section 438—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 34; GST statutory provision - Section 46(1); GST statutory provision - Section 420; GST statutory provision - Section 438 and the decision date 2024-03-07; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Anshul Goyal v. State Of U.P. And Another, the proceeding is CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 12724 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2024-03-07. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 34; GST statutory provision - Section 46(1); GST statutory provision - Section 420; GST statutory provision - Section 438. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 34 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 46(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 420 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 438 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 892 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY