Rajiv Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court granted the petition for regular bail. The Court considered that the offences are triable by a Magistrate's Court, the investigation is complete, and the challan has been presented. It also took into account that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2018 and is not involved in any other case. The Court noted the affidavit filed by the SHO stating that no amount was actually withdrawn by the petitioner on false grounds, nor was any money disbursed to him from the government account. The fact that co-accused have been granted bail was also a consideration. The Court did not comment on the merits of the case, but based on the procedural aspects and the confirmation of no financial loss to the government, the bail was granted. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar, is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 65 dated 27.02.2018, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, and 120-B of the IPC, with Section 122 of the GST Act added later. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2018. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner attempted to withdraw GST/Input tax by preparing fake bills. However, an affidavit filed by the SHO stated that the petitioner did not actually withdraw any amount nor was any money disbursed to him from the government account. The petitioner's co-accused, Munish Aggarwal, has been granted bail, and another co-accused, Gurpreet Singh, has also been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of the GST Act and IPC. The petitioner argued that he has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2018, the investigation is complete, and the challan has been presented. He emphasized that he is not involved in any other case. Crucially, the petitioner highlighted that the SHO's affidavit confirmed no actual withdrawal of funds or disbursement from the government account occurred. Furthermore, the petitioner pointed to the grant of bail to co-accused Munish Aggarwal and Gurpreet Singh as a precedent. The State counsel did not dispute these facts as presented in the SHO's affidavit.