Suresh Chand Meena vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime, the Court emphasized that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The Court noted the petitioner had been in custody for approximately one month and 25 days. Considering the penal provisions invoked, the pre-trial custody period, and the prima facie analysis of the allegations, the Court found no justification for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. The bail was granted subject to the petitioner furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, ensuring his appearance, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court also stipulated conditions for furnishing personal bonds, including providing personal identification details. Any observations made in the order were explicitly stated not to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Suresh Chand Meena, a GST Inspector, sought regular bail in FIR No. 07 dated 04.04.2024, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Faridabad, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was based on a complaint by Surender Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for issuing a GST number for his firm, Divine Trading Company. The complainant stated that his GST application was rejected multiple times due to baseless queries raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 08.10.2024 and had been in custody for approximately one month and 25 days at the time of the bail hearing. The petitioner declared 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 demanding a bribe for issuing a GST number and the duration of pre-trial incarceration. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued for bail, emphasizing that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to him and his family. He also stated he has no criminal antecedents. Respondent's contention: The State of Haryana opposed the bail application, referring to the reply filed by the State, which included a recorded conversation between the complainant and the petitioner as evidence. The State highlighted the prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime.