Mohd. Samir Tyagi @ Mohd. Sameer vs. State Of Haryana
Facts
The petitioner, Mohd. Samir Tyagi @ Mohd. Sameer, filed a petition under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular bail. He was arrested on April 11, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 0067, registered for offences under Sections 406/420 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013. The allegations are that the petitioner's company, which was reportedly closed by the GST Department in 2014, collected substantial amounts of money from individuals by promising high returns, creating a false and forged company. Specific amounts collected from various individuals were noted, including ₹4.52 crore from late Manju Shrinagesh. The investigation is complete, and a challan has been presented.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. It acknowledged that the petitioner was arrested on August 3, 2025, and the challan was presented on September 29, 2025. With 21 prosecution witnesses cited and charges yet to be framed, the conclusion of the trial is expected to take a long time. The Court noted that the trial is magisterial in nature. It found no tangible evidence to suggest the likelihood of the petitioner absconding or interfering with prosecution evidence. The Court also considered that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for 7 months and 14 days, as per the custody certificate. While acknowledging the petitioner's involvement in other FIRs, the Court held this alone was not sufficient to deny bail in the present case, citing relevant precedents. The Court emphasized that further detention as an undertrial was not warranted. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bonds and adhering to specific conditions, including not misusing liberty, tampering with evidence, absconding, committing further offences, depositing his passport, and providing his contact details. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the serious allegations of cheating and misappropriation, and the fact that his company was allegedly closed by the GST Department. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, the FIR stems from a business dispute, the investigation is complete, and the trial will take a considerable time, thus warranting bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and complainant oppose the bail petition, arguing the allegations are serious. They highlight that despite the company's closure by the GST Department, the petitioner continued to collect investments. They fear the petitioner may abscond or tamper with evidence if released on bail.
Sections Cited
Section 483, Section 406, Section 420, Section 3
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-65 65 65 65-202 202 202 202
138 138 138 138 IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG Mohd. Samir State of Hary
Date of decis Date of decis Date of decis Date of decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa
CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM:
Present: Present: Present: Present:-
SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO
2023 seeking No.0067 dat Sections 120- of Interest of at Police Stat 2. complainant, allegations o innocent indi the rate of 3 26 26 26 26 GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H
CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-65 65 65 65-202 202 202 202
Tyagi @ Mohd. Sameer versus yana
ion: ion: ion: ion: March 16 March 16 March 16 March 16, , , , 2026 2026 2026 2026 ading: ading: ading: ading: March 16 March 16 March 16 March 16, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior A Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate and Ms. Surekha, Advocate for the pe Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Sen Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocat ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL)
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.