Vipin Kumar vs. State Of Haryana And Anr

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required due to the serious overt acts attributed to him. The Court noted that the investigation clearly disclosed the petitioner's participation in the conspiracy and the crime committed against the Railway to facilitate the theft of railway property. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vimal Krishna Kundu and Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, emphasizing that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and should be exercised judiciously in exceptional cases. The Court specifically referenced the Supreme Court's order dated 02.05.2024, which vacated the interim order and permitted the petitioner to withdraw his petition, stating that proceedings against him shall continue in accordance with law. The Court concluded that the present petition was not maintainable at this juncture, as the petitioner's custodial interrogation might reveal more scams and fake firms/bills, thereby unearthing the entire conspiracy. The Court made it clear that its observations would not affect the trial court's adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Vipin Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1 dated 12.01.2023, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, at Police Station RPF, Rohtak. The FIR stemmed from the theft of railway construction material. Initially, an FIR was registered under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC for theft against unknown persons. The investigation revealed the involvement of railway employees, contractors, and their staff. The petitioner's parental home was visited by an Investigating Officer who indicated an intent to arrest him for issuing fake GST bills. The petitioner had previously filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the CGST Act, 2017, where interim protection was granted, but this petition was later withdrawn. The petitioner claims to have joined the investigation voluntarily on multiple dates. His anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the FIR registered under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, considering the allegations of creating fake GST bills and facilitating the theft of railway property? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated. He argues that the value of the stolen material (over Rs. 3 crores) is unbelievable for a single night's theft. He asserts that no statutory notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served, despite his voluntary participation in the investigation. He highlights that another co-accused, Abhinav, was granted anticipatory bail, and numerous other co-accused have also been granted bail. He also points to a previous Supreme Court order granting him protection from coercive steps, which was later withdrawn when his petition was dismissed. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana argues that the petitioner is responsible for causing financial loss to the State exchequer by creating fake firms and fake GST bills, which facilitated the theft. The Railway Protection Force (RPF) argues that the petitioner prepared fake bills to facilitate the theft of railway property, causing a financial loss of over Rs. 3.00 crores to the railway. They contend that his custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth more scams and recover stolen property.