The Allahabad High Court has held that an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is maintainable even in the absence of a formal order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, where the applicant demonstrates a real, genuine and reasonable apprehension of arrest founded upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case — including the arrest of a co-accused, the magnitude of the alleged evasion (Rs. 186.62 crores), and searches already conducted at multiple premises. The ruling by Justice Rajeev Bharti in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2133/2026 (Devid Babu Gupta v. UOI through DGGI Lucknow, decided 01.10.2026) however deferred the final decision on the grant of anticipatory bail, directing the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and listing the matter for further consideration.
The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court’s Sunil Biyani (2026 INSC 849) framework, holding that while the absence of a Section 69 order means a mere summons under Section 70 does not by itself create an apprehension of arrest, such absence cannot be treated as an absolute bar where surrounding circumstances — including seizure of 27 undeclared FFS machines, arrest of the co-accused proprietor, quantified evasion of Rs. 186.62 crores, and repeated non-compliance with summons — establish a tangible and reasonable apprehension. The court relied on the SC’s Radhika Agarwal and CBI v. Anil Sharma on custodial interrogation in complex economic offences, and held that the necessity of custodial interrogation cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.
- 2026-juristway.com-2807-HC(Allahabad)-GST | High Court of Allahabad | Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2133/2026 | 01.10.2026
