JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No.17252 of 2025 and I.A. No. 17361 of 2025 Both these interlocutory applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioner for removing the surviving defects, as pointed by the office. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has raised no objection. Hence, the surviving defects, as pointed by the office, are hereby ignored. Both these interlocutory applications stand disposed of. W.P. (Cr.) (Filing) No.29121 of 2025 Instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the arrest memo dated 04.12.2025 issued in Complaint Case No.4596 of 2025 pending before the Court of Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in exercise of power conferred under Section 69 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘CGST Act, 2017’) punishable under Section 132(1)(a), 132(a)(f) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Petitioner is one of the partners of partnership firm M/s Shubh Laxmi Traders, Daltonganj which is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron ore and is registered under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 bearing GSTIN 20ADVFS3446E1Z1. An official complaint was lodged by Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur at the Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur which was registered as Complaint Case No.4596 of 2025 against this petitioner on 05.12.2025. 3. Gravamen of allegation against the petitioner is that specific intelligence was received of large-scale evasion of GST by M/s Shubh Laxmi Traders and accordingly, raid was conducted at multiple places of the said firm on 02.12.2025 which continued till 04.12.2025 under the provision of Section 67(2) of CGST Act, 2017. During search, incriminating physical and digital evidences were recovered disclosing tax evasion to the tune of Rupees Thirty-Five Crores. 4. Argument on behalf the petitioner is of two folds. Firstly, it is regarding illegality of arrest and secondly, it is about illegality of custody. 5. So far, the first plea is concerned, it is submitted that the statutory requirement for arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India , (2025) 6 SCC 545 , has not been followed, specific reference is made to the ratio as laid down in para 60 and 61 of the judgment. Union of India , (2025) 6 SCC 545 , has not been followed, specific reference is made to the ratio as laid down in para 60 and 61 of the judgment. It is further argued that in pursuant to the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court Siddharth Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 , the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, C.G.S.T.-Investigation Wing, issued a circular on 17.08.2022 which inter alia provided the conditions precedent to arrest, has also not been followed in the present case. 6. It is submitted that the authorization to arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued by Additional Director General, DGGI, Zonal Unit, Patna on 04.12.2025 at 22:14:50 pm (Annexure-4). This authorization of arrest did not satisfy the above stated requirement, with regard to the reasons to believe that the persons had committed any offence specified in Clause(a) or Clause (b) or Clause (c) or Clause(d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132. It is further argued that the very timing of the issuance of this authorization commenced in this case on 02.12.2025 at 11:45 a.m. and it concluded on 04.12.2025 at 11:30 p.m. During this period, spot summons were issued and without disclosing the materials “for reasons to believe” the authorization to arrest was issued. It is contended that further reasons to believe as required, have not been disclosed in para-12 of the complaint petition. Reliance is placed on 2016 SCC OnLine Delhi 4951 para 68, 77, 78 and 80 where the arrest has been held to be illegal for not complying with statutory safeguards. It is argued that the manner in which the spot summon was issued in midnight during ongoing search, falls foul of the ratio laid down in Barkha Bansal Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. , 2025 SCC Online P&H 7708 para 10, 13, 16 to 20. 7. On the point of cooperation, it is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there was full cooperation on his part which will be apparent from the Panchnama at Annexure-2 series, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had cooperated during investigation (page 60 & 62 and page 89 of the compilation). Reliance is placed on 2026 MPHC – Gwl Page 442. 8. Reliance is placed on 2026 MPHC – Gwl Page 442. 8. It is argued that the challenge to arrest in the present case has been necessitated to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the reason that there is a breach of statutory provision of arrest outlined under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act. When the authorities act in breach of the statutory safeguards, the person arrested has a remedy under the writ jurisdiction in view of ratio laid down in Radhika Agarwal (supra) case para 84 to 95. 9. Lastly, it is argued that after the said arrest, the petitioner was not produced before the Special Court within 24 hours. The non-production of arrested person is violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with Section 187 of B.N.S.S. making the custody illegal. 10. It is argued by Mr. P.A. S. Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that so far the plea of compliance with the provisions under Section 69 read with 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, i.e., furnishing “reason to believe” for arrest is concerned, it has been stated in the letter of authorization for arrest (Annexure-4), complaint (Annexure-1) and the reasons and grounds for arrest (Annexure-6) as furnished to the petitioner at the time of arrest. The grounds for arrest are elaborate and specific which, inter-alia, state that there were prima facie materials of tax evasion and further that he was not cooperating with the investigating agency. The buyers and sellers have been mentioned in the pen drive and non-arrest could have enabled the Petitioner to influence the major buyers and sellers. 11. There was possibility of tempering as stated in para 1(ii) of the ground of arrest (Annexure-6) furnished to the Petitioner that one of the employees Ranjit Kumar Sharma had attempted to remove electronic evidence. 12. With regard to non-production of the accused, after arrest before the Court, it is submitted that there is a mandate of law under Section 55A of Cr.P.C. that it shall be the duty of the person having custody of the accused person to take reasonable care of his health and safety. 12. With regard to non-production of the accused, after arrest before the Court, it is submitted that there is a mandate of law under Section 55A of Cr.P.C. that it shall be the duty of the person having custody of the accused person to take reasonable care of his health and safety. This mandate is reinforced by the circular Instruction No.2/2022-23 GST investigation dated 17.08.2022 as taken note by Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 64.4 in Radhika Agarwal case (supra), there is a duty cast on the arresting authority concerning medical examination and to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the arrested person. Clothed by these statutory duties, after arrest due to the serious nature of health condition, the petitioner had to be removed from MGM Hospital to RIMS, Ranchi. A letter (Annexure-B dated 05.12.2025 to the counter-affidavit) addressed by the Authorized Officer to the Special Court was sent regarding the transfer of the arrested person to RIMS for treatment. It was against this backdrop, this petitioner was not remanded, rather he was taken to RIMS, Ranchi for his treatment, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in this case ordered the competent authority to get the petitioner remanded within one week and pursuant to this order, he was remanded to the judicial custody vide order dated 24.12.2025 by the Special Judge, Economic Offence, Jamshedpur. 13. It is argued that legality of custody cannot be challenged unless and until the order of remand is also challenged. In this case although the arrest and custody have been assailed, but the order of remand is not under challenge. 14. With regard to the scope of judicial review, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Radhika Agarwal case (supra) again to be referred specifically to para 91 to 95. 15. So far as the spot summon and midnight interrogation are concerned, it is submitted that it is factually incorrect which will be apparent from perusal of the summon and spot summon (Annexure-3 series of the writ petition). 15. So far as the spot summon and midnight interrogation are concerned, it is submitted that it is factually incorrect which will be apparent from perusal of the summon and spot summon (Annexure-3 series of the writ petition). In the summon dated 02.12.2025 addressed to Roshan Kumar, the time for appearance has been stated to be 7:30 pm, whereas in the summon dated 03.12.2025 to Pramod Kumar Agarwal, the time for appearance is 3:30 pm at his premises and in both these summons, the place of interrogation is not the office of Director General of GST Intelligence, but the office of Subhalakshmi Traders where the raid was conducted which is business premises of the petitioner. In order to substantiate this plea, paras 15 and 16 of the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, are referred to wherein it has been stated that on 03.12.2025 the statement of the petitioner was stopped and adjourned for 16 hours to which was to commence on the next day on 04.12.2025 as per convenience. ANALYSIS 16. Arrest in any case is followed by police or judicial custody. Efficacious remedy against police or judicial custody is available in provisions of bail in relevant statutes. However, when the very arrest is illegal the same is amenable to challenge under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court. In case of bail ordinarily it is not the mode of arrest, but the material on the basis of which such arrest is made that falls for judicial scrutiny, 17. The scope of exercise of power under Article 226 when the arrest is under challenge has been explained at length in Radhika Agarwal (supra): “ 84. At the outset, it may be noted that as well settled, though the powers of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide and untrammelled and are vested in the superior courts to protect the legal and fundamental rights of the citizens and even non-citizens, the courts over the years have evolved certain self-restraints for exercising these powers. They have done so in the interest of the administration of justice and for better and more efficient and informed exercise of the said powers. The self-restraints or limitations are imposed as a matter of prudence, propriety, policy and practice. They have done so in the interest of the administration of justice and for better and more efficient and informed exercise of the said powers. The self-restraints or limitations are imposed as a matter of prudence, propriety, policy and practice. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226, by its very nature is used sparingly and in the extraordinary circumstances. 85. It may further be noted that again and as well settled, the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution are part of the integrated scheme of the Constitution. They are not exclusive of each other but operate, and are, subject to each other. The action complained of must satisfy the tests of all the said rights so far as they are applicable to the individual cases. Though Article 21 grants a person right to life and personal liberty, it permits the State to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty, provided it is done strictly according to the procedure established by law. This permission is expressly controlled by Article 22 in both cases of arrest and detention. Therefore, reading Articles 21 and 22 together, it is very clear that the Constitution permits both punitive and preventive detention provided it is according to the procedure established by law made for the purpose, and if both the law and the procedure laid down by the law, are valid. 86. Whenever the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court is invoked under Article 226 or Article 32 as the case may be, challenging the punitive or preventive detention, the Court is expected to take into consideration the nature of right infringed, the scope and object of the legislation under which such arrest or detention is made, the need to balance the rights and interests of the individual as against those of the society, the circumstances under which and the persons by whom the jurisdiction is invoked, etc. In exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction, the High Courts and the Supreme Court do not, as courts of appeal or revision, correct errors of law or of facts. In exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction, the High Courts and the Supreme Court do not, as courts of appeal or revision, correct errors of law or of facts. The judicial intervention is warranted only in exceptional circumstances when the arrest is prima facie found to be mala fide; or is prompted by extraneous circumstances, or is made in contravention of or in breach of provisions of the statute concerned; or when the authority acting under the statute concerned does not have the requisite authority, etc. 88. The safeguards provided in the special Acts against the arrest of a person, are provided keeping in view the fundamental rights of life and personal liberty of a person enshrined in the Constitution of India. It cannot be gainsaid that such safeguards provided against the arrest of a person under the special Acts or the Code of Criminal Procedure, must be observed not only to protect his fundamental right of personal liberty but also to prevent a potential misuse of the power to arrest a person at the instance of the authorised officer. The safeguards are — the requirement to have “material” in possession of the authorised officer, to form an opinion and record in writing the “reasons to believe” that the person arrested is guilty of an offence or has committed an offence as the case may be, under the provisions of the Act concerned, and the requirement to inform the person arrested, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest. As per Article 21 of the Constitution, no person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Since, the personal liberty of a person is deprived, when he is arrested, the procedure laid down in the statute while depriving his personal liberty, has to be followed. Similarly, as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution, no person who is arrested, could be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the grounds for such arrest have to be communicated to him as soon as may be after the arrest is made. Tersely put, there has to be due compliance of the constitutional and statutory mandates, whenever an arrest is made of a person under the special Acts.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Thus, the grounds for such arrest have to be communicated to him as soon as may be after the arrest is made. Tersely put, there has to be due compliance of the constitutional and statutory mandates, whenever an arrest is made of a person under the special Acts.” (emphasis supplied) 18. In MakeMy Trip (India) P Ltd. v. UOI, (2016) 96 VST 37 arrest was not under challenge, but the power of arrest was questioned. Petitioner apprehending arrest for recovery of at service tax dues in terms of section 73/73A of the FA, moved the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that respondents had no power to arrest the officials of the petitioner concerns under section 91 read with section 89 of the F and section nine capital AAA of the central excise act, 1944. The High Court of Delhi held that in the context of the provisions of the FA where an assessee had been regularly filing service tax returns which have been accepted by the ST Department, it was difficult to imagine that without the commencement of the process of adjudication of penalty in terms of section 83A of the FA, another agency like the DGCEI can without an SCN or enquiry or investigation straightway go ahead to make an arrest merely on the suspicion of evasion of service tax or failure to deposit service tax that has been collected. However, where a person is shown to be a habitual evader of service tax. Such person would have to be one who has not filed a service tax return for a continuous length of time, who has a history of repeated defaults for which there have been fines, penalties imposed and prosecutions launched, etc then the arrest may be justified. 19. In Radhika Agarwal (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court has held that to a large extent, the ratio on the applicability of the Code to the Customs Act would equally apply to the GST Acts in view of section 4 and 5 of the Code. 19. In Radhika Agarwal (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court has held that to a large extent, the ratio on the applicability of the Code to the Customs Act would equally apply to the GST Acts in view of section 4 and 5 of the Code. However it has been held in no uncertain term in para-61 of this case that even without a formal order of assessment, the Department/Revenue is certain that it is a case of offence under clause (a) to (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 132 and the amount of tax evaded falls within clause (i) Sub-section (1) to section 132 of the CGST Act with sufficient degree of certainty. The reason to believe must be explicit and refer to material and evidence underlying such opinion. There has to be a degree of certainty that offence has been committed and that such offence is non-bailable. 20. From the above, it is manifest that challenge to arrest by invoking writ jurisdiction cannot be made in a routine or casual manner. Only in cases where the arrest is made in flagrant breach of procedural safeguards with malafide that may call for interference. 21. The main question before this Court is whether materials existed before the authorities concerned, for reasons to believe that Petitioner had been involved in tax evasion so as to make out an offence under Section 69 of the 2017 Act. 22. As per the complaint, Sri Roshan Kumar, Data Entry Staff made his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 that he made entries with regard to sale and purchase data of the firm on the laptop which was stored on specific external green/neon-coloured Acer 64 GB pen drive. It unfolded systematic tactics of maintaining two parallel sets of accounts – ‘Pakka’ sales which contained computer generated invoices where GST was charged, and ‘Kaccha’ sales which were recorded on handwritten papers for cash transactions, in which GST was deliberately not charged or paid. The actual sales/purchase details for FY 2024-25 including cash sales/non-GST sales known as Kaccha sales for the financial year 2024-25 was maintained in the green/neon-coloured Acer 64 GB pen drive while data for 2025-26 was with another staff member namely, Amrish Kumar Agrawal. The records for 2023- 24 had already been destroyed. Similar statements were recorded of Ranjeet Kumar Sharma, Kanchan Prasad Agarwal, Pramod Kumar Agrawal. The records for 2023- 24 had already been destroyed. Similar statements were recorded of Ranjeet Kumar Sharma, Kanchan Prasad Agarwal, Pramod Kumar Agrawal. These materials disclosed a total evasion of GST for the period FY 2024-25 to FY 2025-26 till 20th October, 2025 to the tune of Rs.35.44 Crore. It is alleged that Pramod Kumar Agrawal who was involved as a partner in the clandestine supplies, evading payment of GST. On these materials, Special Court was moved for judicial custody of Pramod Kumar Agrawal on 05.12.2025 on the date on which the complaint was filed. 23. These materials prima facie disclose offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that authorities had entered into a fishing inquiry and had apprehended the Petitioner merely on suspicion. Grounds were disclosed in the complaint as well as in the notice furnished to the Petitioner (Annexure-6). 24. Other pleas of non-production before the Magistrate within 24 hours is not tenable, as the health condition of the Petitioner was such that he had to be moved to the higher centre for treatment. It does not appeal to reason that the accused even at the risk to his health and life should have been produced before the Magistrate. Such a course is not warranted either under statutory provision or under the guidelines of the circular Instruction No.2/2022-23. 25. Issue of spot summons raised on behalf of the Petitioner and the raid having continued at a stretch from 02.12.2025 to 04.12.2025 has been adequately answered by the counsel on behalf of Respondents does not need any further reiteration. 26. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the view that Petitioner has failed to make out any substantive ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.