Harvinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Harvinder Singh, sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 144 dated 04.07.2024, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by the State Tax Officer, State Intelligence and Preventive Unit, Jalandhar. An inspection on 27.06.2024 at a residential house-cum-office in Ludhiana revealed that the petitioner and co-accused were operating 33 non-existent firms, conducting business transactions without any recorded activity. The firms were allegedly registered using PAN cards of individuals who were unemployed or had no means to run businesses, suggesting fraud and GST evasion. The petitioner's prior application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The allegations indicated that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, formed 33 bogus firms by alluring individuals to provide their identity documents, which were then used for fake firm creation and bogus billings to evade GST. The investigation was at a nascent stage, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was deemed essential for conducting a thorough investigation. The Court found no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. It reiterated that anticipatory bail should be granted considering the gravity of allegations, the part attributed to the accused, the potential sentence, and other material facts. The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect with a favorable bail order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of his involvement in forming 33 bogus firms, creating fictitious entries, and generating fake invoices for substantial GST evasion. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was approached by co-accused to register a firm, Rajveer Industries, in his name due to financial losses from COVID-19, and he handed over his PAN and Aadhaar cards. He denied committing any offense, claimed no specific act was attributed to him, and stated he was falsely implicated. He offered to join the investigation and argued his custodial interrogation was unnecessary as no recovery was to be made. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the scheme, responsible for causing huge financial losses to the government and public exchequer by evading GST through a network of bogus firms. They asserted his custodial interrogation was essential for a thorough investigation, to disclose the involvement of absconding co-accused, and to uncover the modus operandi. The State emphasized the gravity of the offenses committed.