Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence vs Harish Sachdeva

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 29 January, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 05 June, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 2300/2021, CRL.M.A. 15297/2021
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing
Counsel and Mr. Gagan Vaswani,
Advocate
versus
GIRISH SACHDEVA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vignesh Ramanathan,
Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
+ CRL.M.C. 2330/2021, CRL.M.A. 15491/2021
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing
Counsel and Mr. Gagan Vaswani,
Advocate
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vignesh Ramanathan,
Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
versus
HARISH SACHDEVA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vignesh Ramanathan,
Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
+ CRL.M.C. 3652/2022, CRL.M.A. 15324/2022
CGST DELHI SOUTH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, SSC, CBIC with
Mr. Shubham Mishra and Mr. Gaurav
Mani Tripathi, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

versus
ABHINAV BARDHAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vignesh Ramanathan,
Advocate (Amicus Curiae).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Aforesaid three Petitions are being decided together, as they
essentially involve similar facts and common questions of law.

2. Aforesaid Petitions have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned Order dated 08.07.2021 (in
CRL.M.C. Nos. 2300/2021 and 2330/2021) and Order dated 13.04.2022 (in
CRL.M.C. No. 3652/2022), whereby, while dismissing the Anticipatory Bail
Applications of the respective Respondents, namely, Girish Sachdeva,
Harish Sachdeva and Abhinav Bardhan, directions were issued to the
Petitioner/Department to give prior notice of seven days before taking any
coercive action against the aforesaid three Respondents , so that they may
avail of their remedy in accordance with law.
3. Brief facts , as narrated in these Petitions, are that on 13.12.2018, an
inquiry was initiated based on intelligence inputs indicating that M/s Daak
International Pvt. Ltd., situated at 602, Naurang House, K.G. Marg, New
Delhi, was issuing E-way Bills of substantial value but had not filed its
returns. Upon visiting the aforesaid address of M/s Daak International Pvt.
Ltd., it was found that the entity was non-existent and the premises were
owned by another Company, namely, M/s Access India Impex Centre Pvt.
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

Ltd. The statement of Mr. Kundan Singh, Manager of M/s Access India
Impex Centre Pvt. Ltd., was recorded on the spot, who revealed that his
Company provided virtual office space to several companies , including M/s
Daak International Pvt. Ltd. He also provided the telephone numbers and
addresses of the three Respondents, who were the Directors of M/s Daak
International Pvt. Ltd.
4. Respondents appeared in the Office of the Petitioner and recorded
their statements, wherein they stated that they were involved in the business
of trading in textiles and minerals and had two main suppliers, namely, M/s
World Window Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Numero Uno Clothing Ltd. The
Respondents further stated that they did not have any storage facility and
their main customers were M/s Chrysalis Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s J.K.M.
Craft Pvt. Ltd.
5. On 28.12.2018, Summons were issued to the respective Respondents
to appear before the Petitioner; however, instead of appearing, they filed
replies, furnished certain documents, and sought a further date for hearing.
6. The Petitioner stated that M/s Daak International Pvt. Ltd. remained
active but had not filed its Returns from March, 2019 onwards, namely,
GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, as was evident from the GST portal.
Therefore, the Company was not discharging its GST liabilities and was
suppressing material facts from the Petitioner/Department.
7. Since the Respondents were neither appearing pursuant to the
respective Summons nor furnishing the requisite documents required to
bring the investigation to its logical conclusion, Summons were again issued
on 02.02.2022 under Sections 70 and 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, requiring
them to furnish evidence and records.
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

8. Time and again, the Respondents were summoned by the Petitioner;
however, instead of appearing before the Petitioner/Department, the
Respondents moved their respective Applications for anticipatory bail
before the learned ASJ, who directed them to join the investigation and
make their statements.
9. It was explained that the Respondents’ Firm was incorporated in
March, 2018 and remained operational only till December, 2018. The Firm
ceased filing GST returns from March, 2019 onwards.
10. The investigations conducted till then revealed that they had evaded
more than Rs.8 crores of Tax by availing ineligible ITC and passed on the
same to their recipients, by mode of circular trading. The Firm was
operational for around ten months only and during this short period, had
defrauded the Government Exchequer for more than Rs.8 crores.
11. The Anticipatory Bail Applications were opposed, on the ground that
there was no apprehension of the Respondents' arrest, as the investigation
was at an initial stage and only summons had been issued, requiring them to
join the proceedings. It was further contended that the Anticipatory Bail
Applications were premature and, therefore, not maintainable. The
Application under Section 438Cr.P.C.was therefore, liable to be dismissed.
12. However, the learned ASJ, vide Orders dated 08.07.2021 and
13.04.2022, directed the Petitioner to give one week's prior notice before
taking any coercive action against the respective Respondents .

13. Aggrieved by the impugned Orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.04.2022,
the aforesaid three Petitions have been filed by the Petitioner/Department.
14. The grounds of challenge are that the Order directing the service of
one week's advance notice upon the Respondents, is erroneous in law and
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
v. Padam Narain Aggarwal & Ors ., (2008) 13 SCC 305, wherein it was
observed that the power of arrest can be exercised only in cases where the
Customs Officer has ‘reason to believe ’ that a person has been guilty of an
offence punishable under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A or 136 of the Act.
Thus, the power of arrest must be exercised on the basis of objective facts
indicating the commission of an offence so enumerated, and the Customs
Officer must have reason to believe that the person sought to be arrested has
been guilty of the commission of such offence. The power of arrest is,
therefore, circumscribed by objective considerations and cannot be
exercised on the whims, caprice or fancy of the Officer.
15. It was further observed that a blanket order of bail may amount to, or
result in, an invitation to commit an offence or a passport to carry on
criminal activities, or afford a shield against any or all types of illegal
operations, which cannot be permitted in a society governed by the Rule of
Law. The Order of the High Court was, therefore, set aside, and the
Respondents were directed to appear before the Customs Authorities.
16. Similarly, the Supreme Court, in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v.
Central Bureau of Investigation , (2013) 7 SCC 466, dismissed the bail
application by observing that economic offences involving deep-rooted
conspiracies and causing huge loss of public funds, are required to be
viewed seriously and constitute grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole, thereby posing a serious threat to its financial health.
17. Similarly, the Supreme Court, in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, dismissed the Bail
Application by observing that economic offences involving deep-rooted
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

conspiracies and causing huge loss of public funds are required to be viewed
seriously and constitute grave offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole, thereby posing a serious threat to its financial health.
18. Similarly, in Parvinderjit Singh v. State , (2008) 13 SCC 431, it was
held that a blanket order of Anticipatory Bail, should not ordinarily be
passed. The Applicant must demonstrate that he has reason to believe that he
may be arrested, and such belief must be founded on reasonable grounds. It
is only when there is some tangible material on the basis of which it can be
said that the Applicant’s apprehension of arrest is genuine, that relief under
Section 438 may be considered. An Order under Section 438 is a device to
secure an individual’s liberty; it is neither a passport for the commission of
an offence nor a shield against all kinds of accusations, whether likely or
unlikely.
19. Similar observations were made in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of
Punjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565.
20. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2020) 5 SCC 1, the
Supreme Court held that an order of Anticipatory Bail should not be a
blanket order and must be confined to the particular offence or incident in
respect of which the apprehension of arrest is expressed, and cannot be
extended to cover all future or unspecified offences.
21. Reliance is further placed on State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwas
Shripati Patil , 1978 Crl. LJ 1403 and Percy Rustomji Basta vs. State of
Maharashtra , (1971) 1 SCC 847.
22. It is submitted that the learned ASJ failed to take into account that, for
effecting the arrest of any person under the CGST Act, prior written
approval of the Commissioner, CGST, is required. Since no such proposal
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

had been placed before the Commissioner, CGST, it is evident that there
was neither any intention nor any apprehension of the arrest of the
Respondents. The learned SPP had also submitted before the Court that
there was no apprehension of the Respondents' arrest.
23. It is further submitted that it has not been appreciated that the
Respondents have not joined the inquiry under Section 70 CGST Act,
despite repeated summons issued by the Petitioner/Department. The
investigation is at a crucial stage, since a substantial amount of revenue is
involved and a fraud is alleged to have been committed. It is, therefore,
submitted that the impugned Orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.04.2022 be set
aside.
24. In response, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that
they had appeared before the Authority and produced all relevant
documents, and had also undertaken to appear before the
Department/Petitioner and join the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted
that there is no infirmity in the impugned Orders dated 08.07.2021 and
13.04.2022, and that all three Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused.
25. The gravity of the economic offences, which impact the financial
health of the country, can never be underestimated and has been
vociferously emphasized by the Apex Court, in the case of Nimmagadda
Prasad ( supra ); Parvinderjit Singh ( supra ) and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia
( supra ).
26. Whenever the Petitioner/Department has reason to believe that any
fraud is being committed by a Company, it has the statutory right to conduct
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

an investigation and, upon detection of any fraud, to proceed against the
persons responsible in accordance with law.
27. However, it is the submission of the Petitioner itself that at this stage
only summons had been issued to the respective Respondents to join
investigations and to give their respective Statements as well as produce the
relevant documents.
28. It is the case of the Petitioner itself that there can be no arrest without
the prior approval of the Commissioner, CGST, and that no such
proposal/application has been placed before the Commissioner seeking the
arrest of the Respondents. It is, therefore, contended that no direction
requiring seven days' prior notice before effecting the arrest of the
Respondents could have been issued.
29. However, from the submissions of the Petitioner itself, it emerges
that summons have been issued and the investigation is being carried out by
the Petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that there is no
likelihood of the Respondents' arrest in future.
30. Much has been argued that such Blanket Order / protection against all
offences is not tenable, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal ( supra ) and Vishwas Shripati Patil ( supra ). However, it
cannot be overlooked that, in the present case, no blanket protection has
been granted to the Respondents, nor have any conditions been imposed on
the Petitioner’s right to conduct the investigation. Rather, directions have
been issued to the Respondents to join the investigation as and when
required by the Petitioner. In the event the Respondents fail to comply with
the notices or join the investigation, the Petitioner/Department is well within
its rights to proceed in accordance with law.
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40

31. Considering that there was no imminent threat of arrest and, therefore,
no case for anticipatory bail was made out, the learned ASJ, in his wisdom,
while dismissing the Anticipatory Bail Applications, had merely directed
that seven days' prior notice be given before taking any coercive action,
which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and affords the
Respondents an opportunity to avail their remedies in accordance with law,
in the event of any apprehension of arrest.
32. Such Orders have been upheld in the cases of Rajeev Jhawar vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation , Bail Appl.1683/2022, decided on
02.06.2022; Judgment dated 09.10.2023 passed by Hon’ble Punjab-Haryana
High Court in the case of Siddharth Chattopadhyaya vs. State Of Punjab
And Another ; and Ram Chandra Panda & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal ,
2023 SCC OnLine Cal 55.
33. To conclude, no blanket protection has been granted to the
Respondents; rather, specific directions have been issued requiring them to
join the investigation, in accordance with law. It is only seven days' prior
notice that has been directed to be given to the Respondents by the
Petitioner in the event that any coercive step is proposed to be taken by the
Petitioner in the present matter, which cannot be held to be a blanket
protection against all crimes, in future.
34. There is no merit in the present Petitions, which are hereby, dismissed
along with pending Applications.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JUNE 05, 2026/ R
CRL.M.C. 2300/2021 & connected matters Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:38:40