P&H High Court Seeks Response Of ADG Of GST Dept Over Alleged Misbehaviour With Warrant Officer Sent By Court
The Punjab & Haryana Excessive Courtroom has sought a response from the GST Further Director Common and an Intelligence Officer, asking them to indicate trigger why contempt proceedings shouldn’t be initiated in opposition to them for misbehaving with the warrant officer despatched by the Courtroom to examine the workplace following allegations of unlawful detention.
A Habeas Corpus plea was filed by a lady searching for restoration of her husband, who was allegedly illegally detained by the GST Further Director Common and an Intelligence Officer. It was discovered that the person was discovered to be detained for 30 hours with out manufacturing earlier than the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar stated, “earlier than passing any orders, a possibility is afforded to respondents No. 2 (Gurdyal Singh Intelligence Officer) and three (Further Director Common GST) to indicate trigger as to why contempt proceedings might not be initiated in opposition to them for snatching papers from the Warrant Officer and obstructing him from performing his official responsibility.”
The Courtroom additional stated that it can not flip a Nelson’s eye to such “recalcitrant misconduct” depicting a blatant disregard for the rule of regulation.
“Permitting such lawlessness to proceed unchecked would undermine the authority and dignity of the justice administration mechanism,” it added.
Perusing the report submitted by the warrant officer, the Courtroom famous that, “the detenue remained in custody of respondents No.2 and three since 12:02 PM on 04.06.2025. He was solely served with an arrest warrant at 8:40 PM the following day i.e. 05.06.2025. It’s evident that the detenue was produced earlier than the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace at 9:25 PM on 05.06.2025 i.e. past the stipulated interval of 24 hours which is in direct contravention of his elementary rights below Article 22 of the Structure of India.”
Senior counsel showing for the petitioner submitted that the Warrant Officer, with the help of the native police, entered the Central Income Constructing, Sector 17, Chandigarh at 06:42 PM. Thereafter, he recovered the detenue from the workplace of Anju Sheokand, IRS the place he was being guarded by one Peon working for the Division.
He added that detenue was in unlawful custody of respondents GST Further Director Common and an Intelligence Officer from 12:05 PM on June 04, i.e. for a interval of over 30 hours.
“The detenue was not even produced earlier than the competent Courtroom throughout the stipulated 24 hours. Additional nonetheless, the detenue was forcible taken away in a convoy of 03 vehicles from the custody of the Warrant Officer, who was performing his official responsibility, as directed by the Courtroom,” the senior counsel additional submitted.
The identical was buttressed by the screenshots of the video connected and Subsequently, at 8:40 PM, a memo of arrest was issued by respondents, in an try to cowl up the truth that they illegally detained the detenue.
It was submitted that the Warrant Officer appeared earlier than the Responsibility Justice of the Peace and knowledgeable the Courtroom that the officers of the Further Director Common GST have obstructed him in discharging his official responsibility.
Further Solicitor Common of India submitted that detenue was by no means detained illegally. As a matter of reality, he was summoned in reference to an investigation in a matter pertaining to Part 132 of the Central Items and Companies Tax Act, 2017 and was duly arrested at 8:40 PM on June 06, when his response was discovered to be evasive. Additional, a while was sought to file a reply to controvert the submissions made by Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
After listening to the submissions, the Courtroom stated that the conduct of respondents GST Further Director Common and an Intelligence Workplace and different officers of the Division “is ex facie contemptuous as they’ve deliberately and maliciously misbehaved with the Warrant Officer and hindered him from discharging the official responsibility” entrusted to him by the Courtroom.
Consequently, the Further Director Common GST was directed to file his affidavit indicating:
(i) Full particulars concerning names of the officers of the Division together with their designations, who had been current at Central Income Constructing, Sector 17, Chandigarh from 06:30 PM to 09.00 PM on 05.06.2025
(ii) Standing of set up of CCTV cameras on the premises of Central Income Constructing, Sector 17, Chandigarh in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtroom in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others (2021) 1 SCC 184.
Whereas adjourning the matter to July 18, the Courtroom directed that “the unique report, together with the arrest memos and floor of arrest in addition to the medical examination report of the detenue be additionally produced on the following date of listening to.”
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Ms. Kashish Sahni and
Mr. R.S. Bagga, Advocates for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, PP UT Chandigarh and Mr. Viren Sibbal, Addl. PP UT Chandigarh.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Further Solicitor Common of India
Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Mr. Suish Bindlish, Mr. Anshuman Sethi and Ms. Preeti Bansal, Advocates for respondents No. 2 and three.
Title: BARKHA BANSAL V/S STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
