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 Sec

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.