Satish Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation as per the previous order dated 04.11.2024. The State counsel confirmed that the petitioner's presence was no longer required for further investigation. Consequently, the interim order dated 04.11.2024 was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue to join the investigation whenever called upon by the Investigating Officer and to abide by the conditions specified under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S. The Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations under the CGST Act or the IPC, focusing solely on the compliance with the investigation process and the grant of anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Satish Kumar, filed a petition under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR, registered on 24.10.2020, pertains to alleged offenses under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The case was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Sirsa. The petitioner stated that he had joined the investigation in compliance with a previous order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the High Court. The State counsel confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No.348 dated 24.10.2020, registered under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC? The petitioner argued that he had complied with the court's previous order by joining the investigation. The State contended that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further inquiry. No specific arguments regarding the merits of the GST or IPC provisions were recorded.