# Sonu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 332
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 10405 of 2024
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar-X
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54243
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. How and who buried the body of the deceased under the heap of sand.

3. How the appellant-Seema came to know about the presence of the dead body in her
house.

4. How weapon of assault reached the house of Seema.

5. How the appellant-Dildar had the knowledge of weapon of assault in the house of
appellant-Seema.

75. In the instant case both the accused-appellants have failed to give any explanation about
the afore-mentioned foundational facts. When the aforesaid facts have been put to the accusedappellants while recording their statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have not not made any
whisper in this regard.

76. In view of what has been indicated herein above, this Court is of the view that the
prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The
impugned judgement and order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 1, Agra in ST No. 730 of 2007, which has been assailed in these criminal appeals do not call
for any interference.

77. Accordingly, both the criminal appeals are dismissed. Appellants are in jail. They shall
remain in jail to serve out the sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court.
78. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and
compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 332
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 13.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 10405 of 2024

Sonu & Ors. ...Appellants
 Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The appellant challenged orders from the Special Judge SC/ST , Kannuj , after charges were framed without
the court considering a subsequent Final Report that found the allegations against them false.

Headnotes
Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506-SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act,1989-Section 3(1)(d)-Investigation-Supplementary Report-Procedure to be
2 All. Sonu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
333
followed by Magistrate upon submission of a "Final Report" under section 173(8) subsequent to
taking cognizance of an initial charge-sheet-A supplementary report submitted under section
173(8) Crpc must be treated as an integral part of the primary report-The magistrate is legally
bound to exercise judicial mind and consider all police reports submitted during the
investigations of a single case-Even if cognizance was previously taken on a primary chargesheet, the Magistrate must evaluate the cumulative effect of all reports, reading them conjointly,
to determine if sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused-The recording of a
contrary opinion based on fresh facts in a supplementary report does not amount to a "review"
or "recall" of the earlier cognizance order, as the judicial duty is continual and the case is not
"disposed of" at the cognizance stage within the meaning of section 362 Crpc-Proceeding with a
trial or framing charges without considering a subsequent Final Report constitutes a procedural
illegality-Appeal allowed.(Para 12 to 26)
Held
The court ruled that the primary report, and all further supplementary must be read conjointly before
reaching any conclusion. The impugned orders are set aside. The learned trial court directed to consider both
the initial report. if it comes to the conclusion that a conjoint reading of both the reports prima facie makes
out a case against the appellants, only then shall it proceed to frame charges against the appellants. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors 2013 (5) SCC 762, Ram Lal Narang Etc. Etc Vs State of Delhi
(Admn.) 1979 AIR 1791 , 1979 SCC (2) 322, Dharmatma Singh Vs Harminder Singh & Ors, 2011 (74) ACC 266
(SC), Abhinandan Jha & Ors Vs Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117], Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. Vs State by
Adugodi Police Station & Anr.: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989

List of Keywords
Initial Police Report/Charge sheet, Supplementary reports, cognizance, Bar on the review or alteration, SC/ST
Act,1989, Conjoint reading, Cumulative effect, Functus officio, Judicial mind, Procedural illegality , Fresh
order.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 10405 OF 2024
 Sonu & 5 Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
From the judgment and order dated 13.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.
Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s) :-
D.K. Tripathi
Adv. for Respondent(s):- G.A.,
Manoj Kumar Srivastava

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State.

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent even in the revised call.

3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow this present appeal and set aside the
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order dated 21.08.2024, 27.06.2024 and 10.05.2024 and all other consequential orders
also passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District-Kannauj in S.C. No.1374/2023 (State Vs. Sonu
@ Bhagwan Bhakt and others) arising out of Case Crime No.627/2023 U/s 147, 452, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3 (1)(d) SC/St Act, Police Station-Kotwali Kannauj District-Kannauj.

4. Before embarking upon the above framed legal question, it will be expedient to refer
proceedings of the case under challenge. An FIR in Case Crime No. 627 of 2023, under Section
147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(d) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Kannauj was lodged
against the appellants. Matter was investigated and I.O. submitted charge sheet against appellants
on 15.9.2023. Learned court took cognizance over the said charge sheet on 21.12.2023. As the
investigation was still under progress, supplementary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was
submitted by I.O. on 31.3.2024 by concluding that allegations against the appellants were found
false. It can be said that a final report was submitted by I.O. subsequent to the order of taking
cognizance upon the charge sheet on 21.12.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that court, after taking cognizance upon the
charge sheet on 21.12.2023, framed charges against the appellants on 7.8.2025. It was submitted
that proceedings under Section 228 Cr.P.C. were carried without considering the final report
submitted on 31.3.2024. Learned counsel submitted that it was incumbent for the court to pass
appropriate orders on final report dated 31.3.2024 before framing charges against the appellants on
7.8.2025.

6. Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA has conceded to the facts disclosed by counsel for the
appellants.

7. In light of the submissions made by learned counsel, a short question which arises for
consideration in this appeal is:-

"What is the legal procedure and the nature of the judicial order to be passed by a
Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure when, following the cognizance of an initial
charge sheet, a subsequent 'Final Report' (negative report) is submitted after further investigation
conducted under Section 173(8)?"

8. Before expressing any opinion upon the above question, it will be appropriate to ponder
upon the procedure provided by the Cr.P.C. regarding the powers which a Magistrate is bound to
exercise after submission of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

9. Upon the procedure to be adopted by Magistrate after submission of a police report
(formerly under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., now governed by Section 193 of the BNSS).
Magistrate has several distinct options upon submission of police report and those options are
summarized below:-

1. Accept the Report and Take Cognizance

If the report (charge sheet) indicates that an offence has been committed, the Magistrate may:
2 All. Sonu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
335

 Take Cognizance: Act upon the facts disclosed in the report and issue a process
(summons or warrant) to the accused.

 Independent Review: The Magistrate is not legally bound by the police report. Even if
the police submits Final Report because of "insufficient evidence", the Magistrate may still take
cognizance if he finds that the records actually disclose a prima facie offence.

2. Reject the Report (Closure or Final Report)

A. If the police submits a "closure report" (Final Report) stating no offence was found, the
Magistrate can:

Accept and Drop Proceedings: Agree with the police and discharge the accused.

Mandatory Notice: Before accepting a closure report, the Magistrate must notify the
informant or victim, giving him an opportunity to be heard through a "protest petition".

B. Order Further Investigation

If the Magistrate finds the investigation was incomplete or flawed:

Direct Further Investigation: Order the police to gather more evidence under the powers now
found in Section 175(3) (formerly 156(3) Cr.P.C. or Section 193(9) BNSS (formerly 173(8) Cr.P.C.

C. Convert Protest Petition into complaint

If the victim or informant files a protest petition challenging the police report (Closure
Report), the Magistrate can:

Treat as a Complaint: Magistrate can treat the protest petition as a private complaint under
Section 223 of the BNSS (formerly Section 200 Cr.P.C.) and then proceed further in accordance
with the procedure laid down under Chapter 15 of Cr.P.C.

Dismiss the Petition: If no prima facie case is made out even after hearing the complainant, the
Magistrate may dismiss the petition and accept the original police report.

10. An investigating officer may complete the entire investigation at once. If he does, he must
submit a police report. However, I.O by virtue of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C have a broad power to
continue the investigation even after submitting initial report (known as a charge sheet or final
report). If he later discovers new evidence or facts directly related to and crucial for the case, he
can conduct further investigation and file another police report. These police reports submitted after
initial report are also police reports and form part of the same initial police report. Initial report
may be described as "primary report" and the latter report may be classified as "supplementary
report". Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors ,2013 (5) SCC 762 held
that supplementary report has to be treated by the Court in continuation of the primary report and
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same provisions of law, i.e., sub-section (2) to sub-section (6) of Section 173 shall apply when
the Court deals with such report.

11. Supplementary reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. may be of the following types:

Type (A): Further oral or documentary evidence that continues from the earlier police report
and indicates commission of offences. It is commonly known as supplementary charge sheet.

Type (B): A conclusion opposite to the initial report, where further investigation discloses no
offence was found to have been committed, commonly known as Final Report.

Type (C): An empty formality with no substantive content. It is also commonly called as
supplementary charge sheet.

12. As discussed above, a "supplementary report" is essentially the same as a "primary report"
and a Magistrate must treat it as part of the primary report. However, a dilemma arises particularly
in those situations where a Magistrate has already taken cognizance based on an earlier "primary
report" disclosing the commission of an offence, but the investigating officer thereafter submits a
supplementary report in the form of a closure report (commonly termed a "Type B report"). A
Magistrate is faced with a question;whether he is empowered to pass any order on the Final Report
particularly if he had already taken cognizance of offence after submission of earlier police report
(primary report). This dilemma occurs due to two reasons. First one is, once a court has passed an
order, either way, it cannot review its own order. Second is,existence of a perception that once a
Magistrate has passed an order of taking cognizance upon charge sheet, then he is not required to
pass any order upon any further supplementary report (Final Report). But, both logics are against
the canon of law.

13. The act of taking cognizance of an offense is not finalized by the submission of an initial
report. The investigating officer's duty to pursue the investigation to its logical conclusion
continues beyond the "primary report." Just as the Investigation Officer must continue their
investigation until a final logical conclusion is reached, the Magistrate's obligation persists until the
police submits their final conclusive report. Consequently, the Magistrate is duty-bound to exercise
judicial mind and consider all police reports submitted during the investigation of a single case.

14. Now it will be relevant to discuss the dilemma of the Magistrate as mentioned earlier.
Review generally refers to a court re-examining its own decision to correct an error. At this stage, it
will be relevant to mention Section 362 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-

"Section 362:-Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time
being in force, no court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall
after or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

15. It is apparent from the reading of the said section that it only restricts re-examining the
merits, facts, or legal findings of a case. The power of review in criminal matters has been
restricted due to the principle of Functus Officio-once a court signs its judgment or final order, its
2 All. Sonu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
337
authority over that specific matter end. Therefore, it is evident that the provision of Section 362
Cr.P.C. applies to only those cases where the Court has "disposed of a case ".

16. But where a Magistrate has to pass various orders alike in the case of investigation coupled
with the fact that he has to apply his judicial mind on each and every report submitted by police
under Section 173 Cr.P.C., his judicial duty is continual. Different facts may arise at different
stages and naturally he will have to pass orders independently applying his judicial mind.Section
362 Cr.P.C. prohibits review but does not restrain Magistrate from passing fresh orders on
emergent facts under Section 173(8). Therefore, if he, after applying his judicial mind, has to pass a
contradictory order during the continuance of investigation proceedings, his latter order passed in
contradiction of his earlier order of taking cognizance is not a "review" of the earlier order but it
would amount only to a fresh order upon fresh facts. Passing order of cognizance at earlier stage
when "primary report " has been submitted, does not "dispose of " the case as mentioned under
Section 362 Cr.P.C. Similarly, Final Report submitted under Section 173 does not differ from any
other report submitted under the said section. Reports may either disclose commission of offence or
they may be submitted to the effect that no offence was found to be committed. Content of the
report submitted under Section 173 will not change the nature of the report and Magistrate is bound
to pass order upon it. Hence, both the fallacies are ill- founded.

17. Now coming to the question framed for this appeal, it will be relevant to discuss the law
laid by Superior Court in order to address this issue. A similar question was raised before the
Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi (Supra). However, its context was a bit different. The question
which was dealt with by the Supreme Court was, "Whether in exercise of its powers under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), the Trial Court has the
jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports, where there are two reports by the same or different
investigating agencies in furtherance of the orders of a Court? If so, to what effect?" The answer of
Supreme Court was;

"31. .... Further investigation conducted under the orders of the Court, including that of
the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the filing of
a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary
report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be
applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.

32. Both these reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the
reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the Court would be expected to apply its mind
to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. If
the answer is in the negative, on the basis of these reports, the Court shall discharge an accused in
compliance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code."

18. Supreme Court then proceeded to answer the issue before it and it held that;

"48. Once a Report under Section 173(2) of the Code has been filed, it can only be
cancelled, proceeded further or case closed by the court of competent jurisdiction and that too in
accordance with law. Neither the Police nor a specialised investigating agency has any right to
cancel the said Report. Furthermore, in the present case, the High Court had passed no order or
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
direction staying further investigation by the Delhi Police or proceedings before the court of
competent jurisdiction.

49. On the contrary, the court had noticed explicitly in its order that it was a case of
supplementary or further investigation and filing of a supplementary report.

50. Once the Court has taken this view, there is no question of treating the first report as
being withdrawn, cancelled or capable of being excluded from the records by the implication. In
fact, except by a specific order of a higher court competent to make said orders, the previous as
well as supplementary report shall form part of the record which the trial court is expected to
consider for arriving at any appropriate conclusion, in accordance with law. It is also interesting
to note that the CBI itself understood the order of the court and conducted only 'further
investigation' as is evident from the status report filed by the CBI before the High Court on 28th
November, 2007.

51. In our considered view, the trial court has to consider the entire record, including
both the Delhi Police Report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code as well as the Closure Report
filed by the CBI and the documents filed along with these reports.

52. It appears, the trial court may have three options, firstly, it may accept the
application of accused for discharge. Secondly, it may direct that the trial may proceed further in
accordance with law and thirdly, if it is dissatisfied on any important aspect of investigation
already conducted and in its considered opinion, it is just, proper and necessary in the interest of
justice to direct 'further investigation', it may do so."

19. Hence, it is evident from the above judgment that a supplementary report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. must be treated as an integral part of the primary (initial) report. Before reaching any
conclusion, the court must evaluate the cumulative effect of all reports submitted under this section,
reading them conjointly (together as a whole) and will apply its mind to the reports to determine if
there are sufficient grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. The proposition
laid down by Supreme Court will apply equally at the time when Magistrate is confronted with
more than one police reports and has to pass an order.

20. Situation may arise, as it has arisen in this case, where the Investigating Officer submitted
a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after filing the charge sheet, disclosing an offence of
which the Court had already taken cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Such situations have also
been discussed by Supreme Court. The issue came before Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang Etc.
Etc vs State Of Delhi (Admn.),1979 AIR 1791, 1979 SCC (2) 322 and it held:-

"Anyone acquainted with the day today working of the criminal courts will be alive to the
practical necessity of the police possessing the power to make further investigation and submit a
supplemental report. It is in the interests of both the prosecution and the defence that the police
should have such power. It is easy to visualise a case where fresh material may come to light which
would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused. When it
comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a
good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi and
submit a report to the Magistrate ? After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its
command than a private individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not
already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot
2 All. Sonu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
339
keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit
a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons. In either case, it is for the
Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is
before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the
enquiry or trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and
deal with all the accused, in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken
cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence
disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What
action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. The criticism that a
further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceedings before the Court is really not
of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further
action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard
against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation."

21. This issue was again revisited by the Supreme Court in Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder
Singh & Ors ,2011(74) ACC 266 (SC), where it held :-

"10. It follows that where the police report forwarded to the Magistrate under Section
173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. states that a person has committed an offence, but after investigation the
further report under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. states that the person has not committed the
offence, it is for the Magistrate to form an opinion whether the facts, set out in the two reports,
make out an offence committed by the person. This interpretation has given by this Court in
Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117] to the provisions of Section 173
and Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which were the same as in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. In Abhinandan Jha (supra), para 15 at page 122 of the AIR this Court
observed:

"... The police, after such investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit a
final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If ultimately, the Magistrate
forms the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take
cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the
police, expressed in the final report."

22. Hence, it becomes abundantly clear that if a Final Report is submitted by the police after
the submission of the charge sheet upon which the Magistrate has already passed an order taking
cognizance, he will have to pass another order on the Final Report after applying his judicial mind
to the contents available in both reports. He will have to assess both the reports conjointly for
arriving at a conclusion. Again, he has the same options as are available at the time when the
"primary report" under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is placed before him namely, to issue process by
taking cognizance, accept the Final Report and drop proceedings, or to direct further
investigation.This ensures the Magistrate's continuing duty to independently evaluate
supplementary police reports post-cognizance, maintaining procedural fairness.

23. Hence, the Magistrate/ Courts are bound to pass orders on every subsequent reports under
Section 173(8) unless supplementary charge sheet lacks fresh materials. This proposition was held
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by Supreme Court in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station &
Anr.: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53, where it was held that :-

"27. The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or
documentary evidence should be obtained rather than re evaluating or reassessing the material
already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police
report, known as the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC. In the absence of any new evidence
found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary
report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks
investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) CrPC. What becomes
apparent from the facts on record of this case is that the investigating agency acted mechanically,
in purported compliance with the Trial Magistrate's order dated 24.06.2015."

24. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that if a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an
offence and, thereafter, the Investigating Officer submits a Final Report (closure report) stating that
no case is made out, the Magistrate cannot ignore that report. He is legally bound to consider the
Final Report and pass an appropriate order on it. He may accept it, reject it, or take cognizance
despite it but he must apply his judicial mind to the report. If the Magistrate proceeds further in the
case without considering the Final Report at all, such inaction amounts to a procedural illegality.

25. Therefore, it becomes evident from the above discussion that -

(i) Every supplementary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is not different from the initial
report (primary report) filed by the I.O.

(ii) Though the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance upon a police report only once, if
supplementary police reports are filed, he must treat such supplementary reports as an integral part
of the primary (initial) report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

(iii) The primary report (initial report) and all further supplementary must be read conjointly
before reaching any conclusion.

(iv) On every supplementary report, a Magistrate/Court is bound to apply his mind
independently, without being influenced by his earlier order of taking cognizance upon primary
report (initial report/charge sheet).

(v) If a Magistrate, after applying his judicial mind to the supplementary report, arrives at a
conclusion contrary to his earlier decision of taking cognizance on the charge sheet (primary
report), the recording of such a contrary opinion will not amount to a review or recall of his earlier
order.

26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.08.2024, 27.06.2024
and 10.05.2024 vide which processes were issued against the appellants in pursuance of taking
cognizance of the charge sheet dated 15.9.2025 and all other consequential orders including the
order of framing charge dated 7.8.2025 are set aside. The learned trial court is directed first to
2 All. Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.
341
consider the final report and pass an order after considering both the initial report (charge sheet)
and the final report. If thereafter it comes to the conclusion that a conjoint reading of both reports
prima facie makes out a case against the appellants, only then shall it proceed to frame charges
against the appellants.

 27. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this judgment/order to all the District
Courts.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 341
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 139 of 2026

Jai Kumar Aggarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the petitioner has been arrested illegally and detained in jail since 16.1.2026 and 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, and whether the "grounds of arrest" and "reasons to believe" are mandatorily required
to be supplied to the arrestee

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21, 22(1) & 226; The Central Goods and Services Tax ActSections 67, 69 & 132 (1) (c) - It is for the Commissioner to ascertain and record the "reasons to
believe" explicitly and with reference to the material and evidence underlying his opinion. It is
not provided anywhere that the "reasons to believe" should be supplied to the accused- There is
serious factual dispute about actual service of "grounds of arrest" on the petitioner before
affecting his arrest since in the remand order, there is no recital that the copy of "grounds of
arrest" was provided to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and before producing him before
the Remand Magistrate and finding of the remand order to be not in accordance with law and
also keeping in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil- The
remand order suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained.
Held- Impugned order set aside- Writ Petition allowed. (E-15)

(Para 21 & 28)
Case Law Cited
Radhika Agrawal Vs. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 545; Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in
S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, dated 11.7.2022,; V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by Deputy Director
and others, (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 51.;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Central Goods and Services Tax Act