Sammy Dhiman Alias Sami Dhiman vs. State Of Punjab
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sammy Dhiman alias Sami Dhiman, is seeking regular bail in a criminal case registered under FIR No. 106 dated 05.07.2018 at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The FIR initially invoked Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, with Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act being added later. The prosecution alleges a loss of over Rs. 25 crores to the government due to fake Input Tax Credits (ITCs). The petitioner had previously undergone proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for the same allegations, spending approximately 21 months in jail from 03.07.2018 to 31.03.2020, and was released on bail due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He has been in jail again since 30.10.2023 for over 1 year and 4 months in the present case.
Held
The Court granted bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had already spent approximately 21 months in jail under CGST proceedings for the same set of allegations and has now been in jail for over 1 year and 4 months in the present case. Coupled with the fact that the trial had not yet commenced even after the framing of charges, and that the alleged offenses would heavily depend on documentary evidence from the Tax Department, the Court found the petitioner's plea for bail to be worth considerable at this stage. The Court reasoned that in view of the totality of circumstances, the allegations, and the factors noticed, it was appropriate to grant the concession of bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate, provided he is not required in any other case. The Court also cautioned the petitioner against threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses and clarified that the observations made were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the trial court to decide based on the complete evidence.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, considering the period already spent in custody and the stage of the trial? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has already spent a significant period in jail for the same set of allegations, first under CGST proceedings for approximately 21 months and subsequently in the present case for over 1 year and 4 months. He argues that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, charges are yet to be framed, and his guilt is yet to be ascertained. He emphasizes that his liberty should not be curtailed indefinitely without proof of guilt. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: The State vehemently opposes the bail plea, characterizing the case as a significant fraud that is increasing in society and causing damage to the economy. They argue that such offenses are serious and detrimental to the country/state, and therefore, the plea for bail should be declined considering the economic loss caused.
Sections Cited
Section 132 Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, Section 420 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, Section 465 IPC, Section 467 IPC, Section 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC, Section 483 BNSS, 2023
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54826-2024 Date of Decision: 26.03.2025 SAMMY DHIMAN ALIAS SAMI DHIMAN ….Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ….Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate and Ms. Shreya Bublani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH
, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Sammy Dhiman Alias Sami Dhiman 106 05.07.2018 420, 120-B IPC (Section 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act – Added later on) Mandi Gobindgarh Fatehgarh Sahib Short reply dated 10.03.2025, in the shape of affidavit of Jai Inder Singh Randhawa, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1, Punjab at Mohali, has been filed on behalf of SANGEETA 2025.03.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-54826-2024 2 respondent – State and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per prosecution, Government has been made to suffer with the loss of more than Rs.25 crores on account of fake ITCs. Counsel further submits that regarding the same set of allegations, he faced the proceedings under Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short ‘CGST Act’) and remained inside jail from 03.07.2018 to 31.03.2020 i.e. for a period of about 21 months. Thereupon, on account of pandemic Covid-19, he was released on bail. On same set of allegations, again State of Punjab has involved the petitioner in present impugned FIR and on account of which petitioner is there inside jail w.e.f. 30.10.2023 and thus, has remained inside jail again for a period of more than 01 year 04 months. Counsel also submits that offence is triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and after submission of the investigation report, even charges are yet to be framed. Thus, submits that guilt of the petitioner is yet to be ascertained, which undoubtedly will depend upon the quality of evidence yet to be led by the prosecution and without there being any such proving, petitioner’s liberty cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Thus, prays for grant of bail.
On advance notice, learned DAG Punjab, while opposing the plea for grant of bail vehemently submits that it is a big fraud rather such like offences are increasing in the society and causing damage to the economy of the country is nevertheless to the serious offence committed SANGEETA 2025.03.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-54826-2024 3 against the State itself, therefore, considering the economic loss caused to the Country/State, plea for grant of bail requires to be declined. 4 I have considered the submissions addressed by both the sides, gone through the record and short reply dated 10.03.2025 also.
After noticing the fact that for the same set of amount, at first instance under CGST proceedings, petitioner remained inside jail for about 21 months and again at the instance of the registration of the case by the State of Punjab, petitioner is inside jail for a period of more than 01 year 04 months, coupled with the fact that the trial is yet to commence even after framing of the charges. Moreover, alleged offences would much depend upon the documentary evidence of the Tax Department, therefore, petitioner’s plea for bail seems to be worth considerable, at this stage.
In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is SANGEETA 2025.03.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-54826-2024 4 expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.
Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) March 26, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANGEETA 2025.03.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
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.