Tekpreet Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Tekpreet Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 43 dated 27.02.2025, registered under various sections of the BNS at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur. The FIR pertains to a GST fraud amounting to Rs. 2,48,80,327, involving forged bills and invoices in the name of a firm allegedly opened in the petitioner's name. The petitioner claimed to be bed-ridden since 2019 with 70% locomotor disability, unable to move without assistance, and that a fictitious company, M/s Tanveer Sales Corporation, was opened without his knowledge. The Court initially stayed the petitioner's arrest and directed a preliminary inquiry into his health and business activities prior to his paralysis. A status report indicated the petitioner was admitted to a hospital in September 2019 for radiculopathy and discharged in a stable condition. The report also stated that bank accounts linked to the petitioner were operated via his mobile phone, and digital signatures were used for transactions of M/s Tanveer Sales Corporation.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the findings in the status report, which indicated that bank accounts linked to the petitioner were actively used for business transactions of M/s Tanveer Sales Corporation, involving the petitioner's mobile phone and digital signatures. The Court noted that the petitioner's PAN and Aadhar cards were linked to these accounts, and his digital signatures were affixed on the relevant documents. Despite the petitioner's claim of being bed-ridden, the Court found that his mobile phone and digital signatures were instrumental in carrying out business activities. Consequently, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the truth and the extent of the alleged fraud, particularly concerning state revenue. The Court did not find any cogent or substantial ground to extend the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail, deeming it discretionary and not warranted in this case. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given his claimed physical incapacitation and the allegations of GST fraud involving his identity and digital signatures? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and principles governing anticipatory bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been bed-ridden since 2019 with a 70% locomotor disability, making it impossible for him to have engaged in business activities or committed the alleged fraud. He contended that his identity and digital signatures were misused by unknown persons. He expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued, based on the status report, that bank accounts linked to the petitioner were actively operated using his mobile phone and digital signatures for transactions related to M/s Tanveer Sales Corporation. The investigation revealed that the petitioner's PAN and Aadhar cards were linked to these accounts, and his digital signatures were affixed on documents. The State contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the truth and ascertain the extent of the fraud.