Azad Singh vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Azad Singh, a retired Taxation Inspector, seeks regular bail in FIR No. 348 dated 24.10.2020, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sirsa. The FIR alleges offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations pertain to refund claims based on allegedly bogus documents. The petitioner's counsel argues that as a Taxation Inspector, his role was enforcement, not document submission, and he has no connection to the submission of the alleged bogus documents. The petitioner has been in custody for over 3 months and 9 days, and being a pensioner, is not likely to abscond. The Challan (charge sheet) has been presented.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over 3 months and 9 days and that the investigation had concluded with the presentation of the Challan. The State Counsel did not dispute the factual assertions made by the petitioner's counsel. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court reasoned that the period of incarceration already suffered and the completion of the investigation were sufficient grounds to grant bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in view of the charges under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner, a retired Taxation Inspector, was responsible for enforcement, not for the submission of documents, and thus has no nexus with the alleged bogus documents used for refund claims. - The petitioner has been in custody for over 3 months and 9 days. - As a pensioner, there is no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice. - The Challan has been presented, indicating that the investigation is complete. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: - The State Counsel was not in a position to dispute the factual assertions made by the petitioner's counsel based on the record.
Sections Cited
Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CRM-M-11968-2024 1 2024:PHHC:035800 226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11968-2024 Date of decision : 13.03.2024
AZAD SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.348 dated 24.10.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST), 2017 and Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sirsa.
Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations relate to refund on the basis of bogus documents. Petitioner who is a retired employee of the State at the relevant point of time was working as Taxation Inspector and has thus nothing to do with the submission of the documents as his responsibility was primarily the enforcement. Apart from that the Deepak Kumar 2024.03.13 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-11968-2024 2 2024:PHHC:035800 Challan stands presented. Petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 months, 9 days. Being pensioner, there can’t be any apprehension that the petitioner shall flee away from the process of law.
State Counsel is not in posititon to dispute the factual assertions made by counsel for the petitioner based on record.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner and the fact that the investigation already stands concluded and Challan stands presented, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 13, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2024.03.13 17:39 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.