Daleep vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Daleep, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 115 dated March 31, 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad. The petitioner had joined the investigation as per previous court orders dated March 21, 2024, and April 23, 2024. The State counsel informed the court that the petitioner was neither required for further investigation nor for custodial interrogation. The petitioner had also filed a separate petition seeking quashing of the FIR. The FIR was lodged based on information received from the Excise and Taxation Officer, Sector 12, Faridabad.
Held
The Court confirmed the interim bail granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner was directed to join future investigations upon written notice, not tamper with evidence, not influence witnesses, and not leave the country without prior court permission. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that a complaint under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, was previously lodged, and the petitioner was not a party to it. The petitioner also argued that the present FIR was lodged to circumvent provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. without cogent proof, and that Section 467 IPC could not be invoked, with Section 72 IPC being relevant due to the CGST Act offense. The Court did not delve into the merits of these arguments but granted anticipatory bail based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and the State's statement that custodial interrogation was not required. The Court explicitly stated that its order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present FIR is maintainable in light of a prior complaint lodged by GST authorities under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Meerut in 2020, raising a question of double jeopardy and circumventing Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Petitioner's contention). 2. Whether Sections 467 of the IPC can be invoked when the alleged offense is under the CGST Act, and if so, whether Section 72 IPC would apply, limiting the cumulative punishment to five years, considering an identical issue pending in CRWP-12206-2022 (Petitioner's contention). 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given his compliance with investigation orders and the State's submission that he is not required for further custodial interrogation (Implicit issue). The State did not record any specific arguments on the maintainability of the FIR or the applicability of IPC sections.
Sections Cited
Section 132, Section 467, Section 72, Section 319, Section 438, Section 482
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order/judgment
CRM-M-14666-2024
2
During the course of hearing on 21.03.2024, following order was passed: “ At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, in fact, another petition bearing No. CRM-M-14732- 2024 has also been filed seeking quashing of the present FIR and hence, he represents the petitioner in both the cases. After taking through the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner has opened his arguments that it is a case of double jeopardy as the GST Authorities have already lodged a complaint under Section 132 CGST Act, 2017 before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Meerut in the year 2020, wherein, the petitioner was never made a party, now to circumvent the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C in the said complaint case without any cogent proof, the present FIR has been lodged as the FIR duly records that the entire narration of facts was received from the Excise and Taxation Officer, Sector 12, Faridabad through registered post on which the authorities have initiated the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that an identical issue is also pending in CRWP-12206-2022, where also the authorities have invoked the provisions of Section 467 of IPC which could not have been invoked, as Section 72 IPC will come into play, as the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner is under CGST Act and even if Section 467 IPC is charged, the cumulative punishment i.e. sentence of imprisonment cannot be beyond 05 years. Notice of motion. Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. In light of the above and without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to join investigation on 30.03.2024 at 10:00 A.M. before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency, even thereafter. KANIKA 2025.05.16 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14666-2024
3 In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer and the petitioner shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Adjourned to 23.04.2024. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be construed as parity qua any other co-accused. A copy of this order be also placed on record in CRM-M- 14732-2024. ”
Keeping in view the above submissions made by learned State counsel and the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation consequent to the orders dated 21.03.2024 and 23.04.2024 passed by this Court, interim bail granted vide orders dated 21.03.2024 and 23.04.2024 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482 (2) of BNSS, 2023. Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
The petition stands allowed.
It is made clear that anything contained hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 14.05.2025
(SANJIV BERRY) kanika
JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No KANIKA 2025.05.16 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
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.