The Bombay High Court in the case of Ashrafbhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya Versus Union of India And Anr. vide Criminal Bail Application No. 420 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025, held that arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act without furnishing written grounds of arrest to the arrestee amounts to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of CrPC. Oral communication and endorsement in the arrest memo that grounds were “explained” do not satisfy the statutory or constitutional mandate. An internal Authorization to Arrest, even if it contains reasons, must be served upon the arrestee to fulfill the constitutional mandate. Failure to do so renders the arrest illegal and the subsequent remand void. The accused is entitled to bail, irrespective of the gravity of economic offence or past antecedents, once the arrest is found to be unlawful. Further, the burden is on the arresting agency to establish compliance with these requirements. Non-compliance renders the arrest and custody illegal, justifying grant of regular bail, even in serious economic offences involving alleged fraudulent availment of ITC.

Facts of the Case: The applicant was arrested on 12.03.2024 by officers of the DGGI, Pune Zonal Unit, under the powers conferred by Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant was accused of fraudulently availing and passing on ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) through multiple fictitious firms that were allegedly created and operated solely for generating fake invoices without actual supply of goods or services. The arrest was made under Section 69 of the CGST Act, and the applicant was accused of offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (i), (2), r/w Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The applicant filed for regular bail, asserting violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest. DGGI relied on the Arrest Memo and Authorization to Arrest, asserting that the applicant was orally informed of the grounds of arrest and that the arrest was witnessed.

Issue: Whether the arrest of the applicant under Section 69 of the CGST Act without furnishing written grounds of arrest amounts to a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of CrPC, thereby making the custody illegal and entitling the applicant to bail?

Held that: The High Court held that the applicant was not informed of the grounds of arrest in writing as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of Cr.P.C. The Arrest Memo merely stated that the applicant was being arrested under Section 132 of the CGST Act, but did not contain or communicate the detailed grounds of arrest or furnish a copy to the applicant.

The Authorization to Arrest, although shown to the applicant and signed by him, was found to be an internal note issued under Section 69(1) and not addressed or handed over to the applicant.

The Court rejected the DGGI’s submission that oral communication or endorsement in Gujarati (that he spoke to family and grounds were explained) was sufficient. It was held that communication must be in writing and in a form that enables the arrestee to understand and challenge it legally. Reference to an oral explanation and endorsement by a witness was held insufficient to comply with Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC.

The High Court heavily relied on the following Supreme Court judgments in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025, wherein held that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1), Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) emphasized the constitutional mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing.

The Court also took into account the fact that the matter had been listed nearly 25 times before the Sessions Court, but had not progressed to cognizance stage, showing delay and prejudice to the accused. Accordingly, the arrest was held to be in contravention of constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the applicant was entitled to bail.

The Court held that the applicant shall be released on personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. Further, must deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer and not leave Maharashtra without prior permission. Also, shall cooperate with trial, not tamper with evidence, and mark regular attendance before the concerned trial court.

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1556