Pawan Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since May 25, 2018, and is not required for any further investigation or interrogation. The Court also noted that the trial of the case is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, keeping the petitioner in custody until the final disposal of the case would serve no useful purpose. The Court explicitly stated that it was not discussing the facts in minute detail and was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety.

Facts

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The FIR was registered on May 2, 2018, at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, formed fake firms, evaded GST, and caused wrongful loss to the Government. Challan has been presented, and the petitioner has been in custody since May 25, 2018. He is not required for further investigation or interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No.379 dated 02.05.2018 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC, considering his period of custody and the stage of the trial. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he has been in custody since May 25, 2018, is not required for further investigation or interrogation, and the trial is likely to take a long time. Therefore, keeping him in custody would serve no useful purpose. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Argument: The State counsel contested the petition. No specific arguments or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the State in the judgment.