Anil Malik vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. This decision was based on the submissions made by both the petitioner's counsel and the State counsel. The petitioner had joined the investigation as directed by the Court's previous order dated 13.09.2024. The State counsel confirmed that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and was no longer required for further custodial interrogation. Consequently, the interim order granting anticipatory bail was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue to join the investigation as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer and to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Malik, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. This was in relation to FIR No. 367, registered on 02.11.2020, at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sirsa. The FIR was lodged under Section 132 of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation in compliance with a previous court order dated 13.09.2024. 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 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 367 dated 02.11.2020, registered under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that he had complied with the court's previous order by joining the investigation. The State argued that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was not required for further inquiry, implying that the purpose of the investigation concerning his custody had been met.