Rishi Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Rishi Kumar, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR in question, No. 367 dated 02.11.2020, was registered at Police Station Civil Lines Sirsa, District Sirsa, under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act (CGST), 2017, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and later Section 409 of IPC. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation in compliance with a previous order dated 28.02.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court. The learned State counsel confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further inquiry.

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 learned State counsel. The petitioner had joined the investigation as per the interim order dated 28.02.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench. Furthermore, the State counsel confirmed that the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. In light of these facts, the Court found no impediment to granting anticipatory bail. The interim order dated 28.02.2024 was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. No specific issues regarding the merits of the GST or IPC charges were decided, as the matter was disposed of on procedural compliance and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 367 dated 02.11.2020, registered under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409 of IPC. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he had complied with the order dated 28.02.2024 by joining the investigation. This compliance, coupled with the fact that he was no longer required for further investigation, formed the basis for his request for anticipatory bail. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Contention: The State counsel confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further investigation, implicitly supporting the petitioner's prayer for relief.