Union of Indiav.Sunil Biyani

Supreme Court Holds No Interim Relief After Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail, Requires Communication of Section 69 Arrest Order

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Union of India v. Sunil Biyani

Citation: 2026 INSC 849

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Sheel Nagu

Date of Judgment: August 12, 2026

Area of Law: Criminal Procedure, GST Law, Anticipatory Bail

The Judgment in One Line

High Court cannot grant protective order after dismissing anticipatory bail application; Section 69 arrest order must be communicated to enable bail remedy.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment clarifies two critical procedural aspects under the GST regime. First, it reaffirms that when a petition seeking substantive relief (such as anticipatory bail) is dismissed, no interim or protective relief can be granted—interim relief is only ancillary to the main relief. Second, it holds that an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act authorizing arrest must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested. Without such communication, the accused cannot exercise the right to seek anticipatory bail, creating a catch-22 situation. This ensures that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is not defeated by procedural opacity.

Background

The respondent, Sunil Biyani, was being investigated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence for allegedly availing and passing Input Tax Credit without actual supply of goods. During the investigation, summonses under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued. The respondent filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. He then approached the High Court. The Department filed an affidavit stating that no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act had been passed as the investigation was still nascent.

The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, holding that without an order under Section 69, there could be no apprehension of arrest. However, it granted protection from arrest for one week from the date of intimation of any order under Section 69. The Union of India appealed against this protective order.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the High Court could grant protective relief from arrest after dismissing the anticipatory bail application.

2. Whether an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act authorizing arrest must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the protective order while directing communication of the Section 69 order. The Court's reasoning was detailed:

No Interim Relief After Dismissal: The Court applied the principle from State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta: a petition under Article 226 cannot be used for the sole purpose of issuing interim relief when the main petition is not maintainable. Interim relief can only be in aid of and ancillary to the main relief. Once the anticipatory bail application was dismissed, no protective relief could be granted. The Court relied on Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., which held that once a writ petition is dismissed, all interim reliefs granted would also go, and the question of granting further relief after dismissal does not arise.

Section 69 Order Must Be Communicated: The Court held that an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act is a sine qua non for maintaining an application for anticipatory bail. Without such an order, there is no apprehension of arrest. If the order is not communicated, the accused would be in a catch-22 situation—unable to apply for anticipatory bail until the order is passed, but unaware of the order to challenge it. The Court read into the statute a requirement of communication, applying principles of natural justice and fairness.

Personal Liberty Under Article 21: Relying on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, the Court held that the right to personal liberty requires that the procedure for depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. Non-communication of the arrest order would make the procedure unreasonable.

Modes of Communication: The Court noted that under Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, a person seeking registration must provide an email address and mobile number. The order may be communicated through electronic means, in addition to other permissible modes under the BNSS.

Observations Not on Merits: The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the point of law and did not constitute a finding on facts or merits. The investigation shall proceed uninfluenced by the observations.

Key Legal Principles

1. No interim relief after dismissal — when a petition seeking substantive relief is dismissed, no protective or interim relief can be granted; interim relief is only ancillary to the main relief.

2. Communication of arrest order is mandatory — an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act authorizing arrest must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested.

3. Section 69 order is sine qua non for anticipatory bail — without such an order, there is no apprehension of arrest and no right to seek anticipatory bail.

4. Fair procedure requires communication — to meet the test of Article 21, the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable; non-communication defeats this.

5. Catch-22 situation must be avoided — the accused cannot seek anticipatory bail without an order, but cannot challenge an order he does not know exists.

6. Electronic communication is permissible — orders may be communicated through email and mobile numbers provided at registration.

7. Right to challenge arrest order — communication enables the accused to challenge the "reasons to believe" recorded by the Commissioner.

Important Precedents

State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 (Constitution Bench)

• Held that Article 226 cannot be used solely for granting interim relief when the main petition is not maintainable; interim relief is only ancillary to the main relief.

Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453

• Held that once a writ petition is dismissed, all interim reliefs granted would also go; the question of granting further relief after dismissal does not arise.

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 (Constitution Bench)

• Held that Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) is a procedural provision concerned with personal liberty; it must be interpreted fairly and reasonably to avoid constitutional vulnerability.

Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, (2025) 2 SCC 384

• Held that a person summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act is not per se an accused; an order under Section 69 is required before arrest.

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1

• Held that anticipatory bail can be granted without any restriction on time; the right to seek anticipatory bail is a valuable right.

Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 792

• Reiterated that interim relief can only be in aid of and ancillary to the main relief.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment is crucial when advising clients on anticipatory bail under the GST regime. It establishes that a Section 69 order must be communicated before arrest. If the order is not communicated, the accused can argue that the procedure is unfair. It also clarifies that once an anticipatory bail application is dismissed, no protective order can be granted—clients must seek substantive relief, not interim protection.

For future litigation: The judgment ensures that the Department cannot arrest a person without communicating the Section 69 order. This prevents the accused from being taken by surprise and enables a challenge to the "reasons to believe" before arrest. The judgment also reinforces that courts cannot grant protective orders after dismissing the main petition.

May be cited: In any anticipatory bail application under the CGST Act where the Section 69 order has not been communicated, and in any case where the court grants protective relief after dismissing the main petition.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's reading of a communication requirement into Section 69 is significant. While the statute is silent on communication, the Court held that without it, the accused cannot exercise the right to anticipatory bail—a classic catch-22. This ensures procedural fairness and protects personal liberty.

Lawcurb Practice Note

When seeking anticipatory bail under the GST regime, ensure that the Section 69 order has been communicated. If not, argue that the procedure is unfair and violates Article 21. Also, if the court dismisses the application, no protective order can be granted—seek substantive relief instead.

Remember This Ratio

An order under Section 69 of the CGST Act authorizing arrest must be communicated; no protective relief can be granted after dismissal of the main petition.

Exam Lens

Q: What is the effect of dismissing a petition seeking substantive relief on interim orders? A: When a petition seeking substantive relief (such as quashing of FIR or anticipatory bail) is dismissed, all interim reliefs granted during its pendency also stand vacated. No further interim or protective relief can be granted after dismissal, as interim relief is only ancillary to the main relief.

Q: Is an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act required to be communicated to the person sought to be arrested? A: Yes. Although the statute does not expressly require communication, the Court read this requirement into the provision to ensure procedural fairness. Without communication, the accused cannot seek anticipatory bail, creating a catch-22 situation. The order must be communicated through electronic means or other permissible modes.

Q: What is the significance of Section 69 of the CGST Act for anticipatory bail? A: Section 69 empowers the Commissioner to authorize arrest if there are "reasons to believe" that an offence has been committed. The order under Section 69 is a sine qua non for maintaining an application for anticipatory bail. Until such an order is passed and communicated, there is no apprehension of arrest and no right to seek anticipatory bail.

Final Outcome

• Appeal disposed of — the protective order granted by the High Court is set aside.

• No interim relief after dismissal — the High Court could not grant protective relief after dismissing the anticipatory bail application.

• Communication of Section 69 order required — the Commissioner shall communicate the order under Section 69 to the respondent through electronic means or other permissible modes.

• Liberty to seek remedy — after communication, the respondent may pursue such remedy as is available in law.

• Observations not on merits — the findings are confined to the point of law and do not constitute a finding on facts or merits.

• No costs — pending applications disposed of.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant procedural safeguard for persons under GST investigation. By requiring communication of the Section 69 arrest order, the Court has ensured that the right to anticipatory bail is not rendered illusory. The principle that no protective relief can be granted after dismissal of the main petition reinforces procedural discipline. A balanced decision that protects personal liberty while respecting the statutory framework.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.