Compliance with procedural mandates during arrests under special laws is crucial to uphold constitutional rights, yet minor lapses do not invalidate arrests unless they cause demonstrable prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Union of India, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Shraff, learned counsel, representing the respondents.

2. This application has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 528 and Section 442 of the BNSS , 2023, assailing the order dated 07.06.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/1208/2025, granting bail to the accused persons (the respondents), vide order dated 07.06.2025 for not mentioning of the heading “ Section 47 of BNSS ” in Ground of Arrest and “ Section 48 of BNSS ” in the Notice to the Relative, as well as for not providing the Grounds of Arrest to the relative of the respondents.

3. The case as has been projected in the petition is that the respondent no. 1 (Sashi Kumar Choudhury) is involved in fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 8.27 crores during the financial year 2024-2025 in the name of the firm, namely, M/s S. K. Enterprise and the respondent no. 2 (Ankit Choudhury) is involved in fraudulent availment of ITC of Rs. 8.26 crores during the Financial Year 2024-2025 in the name of the firm, namely M/s Ankit Enterprise. A case was registered under Section 132 (1) (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act of 2017) and the accused persons were arrested on 05.06.2025 in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/1208/2025 on allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to Rs. 8.27 crores and Rs. 8.26 crores respectively. The respondents were arrested at Kolkata, West Bengal and were produced before the learned CJM, Barasat, Kolkata, West Bengal, on 06.06.2025. The learned CJM, Barasat, Kolkata, West Bengal, while rejecting the bail, allowed the transit remand for two days to enable the Investigating Agency to produce the respondents before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. The bail applications filed by the respondents were, thus rejected by the learned CJM, Barasat, Kolkata and the respondents were produced before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, on 07.06.2025. The respondents filed a bail application on 07.06.2025 before the learned the CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and the learned CJM, vide it’s order dated 07.06.2025, was pleased to grant bail to the respondents on the ground that the Grounds of Arrest, in writing, was not provided to the relative of the accused persons at the time of their arrest and thereby, violated the constitutional mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in cases of 1) Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254 and 2) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2025, the petitioner has filed this instant petition for setting aside of the aforesaid order, on the ground that the Investigating Agency has complied with all the provisions under the CGST Act, 2017 as well as the BNSS , 2023, while arresting the accused persons (respondents).

5. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, while granting the bail to the respondents has committed a mistake in law by placing undue reliance on the alleged technical lapse regarding non mentioning of the heading “ Section 47 of BNSS ” in the Ground of Arrest and “ Section 48 of BNSS ” in the Notice to the Relative, despite the fact that all essential requirements and mandates under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS were complied with.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents were duly provided with the Arrest Memos, Authorizations of Arrests which included “reasons to believe” and “Grounds of Arrest” at the time of their arrests. He further submits that an intimation of arrest was also handed over to the relative (the wife of the respondent no. 1 who is also the mother