Introduction:

In Barkha Bansal vs State of U.T., Chandigarh & Others (CRWP‑6077‑2025), the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, intervened in a habeas corpus plea involving businessman Bharat Lal Garg. The Court criticised the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for holding Garg over 30 hours and extracting laptop data under coercive conditions. The bench emphasised critical procedural safeguards: statements must be recorded during official hours, in counsel’s presence (albeit outside hearing range), and under CCTV surveillance—rightfully invoking precedents from the Bombay and Telangana High Courts, as well as the Supreme Court’s directive in Paramvir Singh Saini. The Court further held that arrest authorisation was “mechanical” and invalid, reinforcing Articles 21 and 22 protections. This judgment underscores a balance between enforcement efficacy and constitutional rights.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Bargal & Bansal):

Represented by Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai with Advocates Arnav Ghai and R.S. Bagga, the petitioner contended that B. Garg was illegally held overnight under “psychological coercion,” and his laptop was seized without proper procedural compliance. They argued that interrogation late into the night, under DGGI guard, effectively amounted to informal detention—undermining his freedom and right to counsel. Crucially, they pointed out that the arrest proposal, approved at 5:46 pm and rubber-stamped an hour later, lacked mandated documentation (DIN) and demonstrated absence of “application of mind.” No urgency justified after‑hours interrogation. The absence of CCTV recordings violated Paramvir Singh Saini safeguards. They asserted his rights under Articles 21 and 22 were breached, necessitating judicial remedy.

Arguments by DGGI (Respondents):

Represented by a team including PS Manish Bansal, Addl. PP Viren Sibal, ASG Satya Pal Jain (VC), Respondents contended that Garg had voluntarily cooperated and no arrest occurred until after official hours. They maintained DGGI had powers to summon and investigate with discretion, and any contention of coercion lacked basis. They argued the laptop data extraction was forensic procedure integral to the investigation. As for CCTV, they stated cameras were non-operational due to construction—a technical lapse not impacting legality.

Court’s Judgment & Reasoning:

Working Hours Requirement:

Referring to Bombay HC in Mahesh Devchand Gala v Union of India and Telangana HC in Agarwal Foundries, Justice Brar held that statements must be recorded during official hours and with legal representation visible to the detainee.

CCTV Mandate:

Citing Paramvir Singh Saini (SC, 2021), the bench stressed surveillance during interrogations ensures fairness and transparency. The explanation of non-functional cameras was found implausible and evasive.

Psychological Coercion:

The Court underscored that constant monitoring and implied threat of arrest created an environment where Garg’s presence was not free—rendering any alleged consent illusory.

Invalid Arrest Authorization:

Arrest at 5:46 pm and approval shortly after, without record or DIN, was ruled “mechanical” and invalid. Failure to furnish reasons shows lack of application of mind.

Informal Custody v Arrest:

Continued detention beyond office hours without legal documentation engaged Articles 21 and 22. The Court highlighted the judiciary’s duty to protect individuals from power misuse.

Balancing Enforcement & Rights:

Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the Court required authority to justify “reasons to believe” before arrest, record these reasons, and ensure due process.

Directions Issued:

• Statements must be taken within office hours, with counsel present and CCTV recording enabled.
• DGGI officers must justify reasons and apply their mind before authorising arrest.
• Install and maintain CCTV systems; explain non‑compliance to SC directives.
• Next hearing scheduled for July 30 to review compliance and any obstruction to warrant officers.