Hitesh Bhnsali vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Hitesh Bhansali, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, with a maximum bond amount not exceeding INR 10,000. The Court reasoned that while the allegations were serious, further pre-trial incarceration was not justifiable at this stage, considering the penal provisions invoked, the prima facie analysis of the allegations, and other peculiar factors of the case. The Court emphasized the precious nature of personal liberty and the constitutional mandate to curtail it only when imperative. The petitioner was directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigator in the recovery of proceeds of crime. Failure to do so would allow the State to seek cancellation of bail. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court should not advert to these comments. The Court also referenced a Division Bench judgment regarding the acceptance of downloaded bail orders to facilitate the immediate restoration of liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, Hitesh Bhansali, sought regular bail in FIR No. 121 dated March 25, 2023, registered at Police Station DLF, Sector 29, Gurugram, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed based on a complaint alleging a conspiracy by Vihaan Kumar to gain control of Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through false inducements, appointment of fake directors, and engaging shell companies for services, leading to a loss of Rs. 12,15,00,000/- due to non-deposit of GST collected. The petitioner's role, as per the State's reply, was as an accountant in Vihaan Kumar's shell companies, involved in sending documents related to fake directors and facilitating payments to service providers. The petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust, and the stage of pre-trial incarceration? The petitioner argued that continued pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice and expressed willingness to abide by any stringent bail conditions, including the revocation of bail if any further non-bailable offense is committed. The petitioner also agreed to join the investigation if ordered. The State opposed bail, referring to its reply and highlighting that the recovery of the amount had not been effected. The complainant's counsel also opposed bail, praying for further investigation and efforts to recover the proceeds of crime.