JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohit Singh, Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Sri Vedant Gupta, Ms. Snigdha Singh and Sri Harsh Vardhan Kediya and Sri Vineet Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dhnanjay Awasthi, Sri Gopi Krishan Soodh and Sri Harmanpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel DGGI, Delhi (online), learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-Ist for State-respondent nos. 3 & 4 and perused the material on record.

2. The above noted habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for following reliefs:-

i. To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the corpus/petitioner while declaring the detention, arrest, and subsequent remand and custody of the petitioner as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing that the Petitioner be released forthwith;

ii. to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Case No. 1361/2025, under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Ghaziabad, and all consequential proceedings thereof;

iii. to issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. To allow the instant petition with costs.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 29.12.2025 at about 8:00 a.m., officers of respondent no.1 detained the petitioner and started search proceedings at his residential premises as per Section 67 of CGST Act. After the search proceedings under Section under Section 67 of the CGST Act, petitioner was arrested on 16.1.2026 as per Section 69 of the Act aforesaid.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that at about 6:40 p.m. on 16.1.2026 respondent no.1 handed over an arrest memo without any annexure and search memo to the petitioner and directed the petitioner and his wife to accompany them. Apart from the aforesaid documents, no other documents were supplied to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Neither "ground of arrest" nor "reasons to believe" as mandatorily required under Section 69 CGST Act read with the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal Vs. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 545 were furnished to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the arrest of the petitioner under Section 69 of CGST Act is unwarranted since the offence alleged is punishable up to 5 years only and therefore in view of the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, dated 11.7.2022, the arrest of petitioner could not have been made.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the circular dated 17.8.2022 issued by the department of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST- Investigation Wing), the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"F.No. GST/INV/Instructions/2021-22 GST-Investigation Unit

17th August 2022

Instruction No. 02/2022-23 [GST - Investigation]

Subject: Guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offence punishable under the CGST Act, 2017-reg.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 16th August, 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5442/2021, has observed as follows:

"We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made rou