Gursewak Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Gursewak Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 77 dated 02.06.2023, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 408, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was based on a complaint by Amarjit Singh Bali, proprietor of B.S. Steels, alleging fraud amounting to approximately Rs. 1.33 crore through the issuance of fake GST bills. The complainant, an American citizen, stated that his accountant, Amarjit Singh Bhatti, in connivance with others and bank officials, prepared fake bills and diverted GST payments meant for various firms into different accounts. The petitioner is identified as the proprietor of Aadi Shakti Jewellers, into whose account an amount of Rs. 20,91,932/- was allegedly deposited as GST refund based on fake invoices.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging the existence of digital evidence showing the deposit of Rs. 20 lacs into the petitioner's account, the Court reasoned that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence, though prima facie sufficient for prosecution, was not deemed sufficient to justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration at the stage of anticipatory bail. The Court also noted that the police had not arrested the petitioner, indicating that custodial interrogation might not have been considered essential by the investigating agency. Therefore, considering the penal provisions invoked, the prima facie analysis of allegations, and the fact that some account holders had deposited the amount, the Court found no justification for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration, making a case for bail. The petitioner was directed to join the investigation and cooperate fully, with the bail being conditional upon his compliance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of fraud and the deposit of a significant sum into his firm's bank account? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued for anticipatory bail, highlighting that he had no prior criminal antecedents and that pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive. He also noted that the police had not arrested him despite the FIR being registered earlier. Respondent's contention: The State opposed the bail, referring to its reply which stated that documentary evidence, including bank records, showed the deposit of Rs. 20,91,932/- into the petitioner's firm's account, constituting a significant portion of the defrauded amount.