Gaurav Singhal vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Gaurav Singhal, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered by the Excise and Taxation Department. The FIR alleged that one Ajay Kumar Singh had registered a firm, M/s Milan Mega Mart, using fake documents under the CGST/HGST Act, 2017. During the investigation, it was revealed that this firm had dealings with 17 other concerns, and they attempted to utilize input tax credit amounting to Rs. 17.96 crore, though a significant portion was blocked by the department. The petitioner asserted that he was neither a shareholder, director, office bearer, nor employee of any of these firms. He claimed to have been implicated based on the statement of an accountant, Krishan Kumar, who worked for the Chartered Accountant of the accused firms. The petitioner expressed readiness to join the investigation.
Held
The Court decided to make the interim order dated 29.07.2021 absolute, subject to the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for custodial interrogation, as stated by the learned State counsel. The Court clarified that the order was not a "blanket" or indefinite protection from arrest and was confined only to the FIR in question. It also emphasized that the order did not limit the rights or duties of the police to investigate. The petitioner would be deemed in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if any discoveries were made based on his information. The police were permitted to move the court for arrest under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. in case of violation of any terms, such as absconding or non-cooperation. The petition was disposed of, with the Court explicitly stating that its observations were not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR registered by the Excise and Taxation Department, considering his alleged lack of direct involvement in the formation of the firm or its fraudulent activities, and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he had no direct connection to the fraudulent firm, M/s Milan Mega Mart, or the other 17 concerns. He contended that his implication was based on the statement of an accountant and that he was ready to join the investigation and cooperate fully. He sought protection from custodial interrogation. Revenue's arguments: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, initially sought time to respond and intended to place on record an additional affidavit to demonstrate the petitioner's complicity in the crime. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State regarding the petitioner's guilt or the denial of anticipatory bail at the final hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 438(2), Section 439(2), Section 27
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:022556 that the petitioner is neither a shareholder nor a Director nor office bearer or employee of any of the said firms. He submits that the petitioner has been roped in, on the basis of the statement of an Accountant, Krishan Kumar, who was working with Sunny Tanwar, who in turn, was a Chartered Accountant of all the 17 accused firms. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. Let the petitioner join the investigation on 02.08.2021 at 11.00 a.m. at Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat and extend full cooperation to the investigating agency. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not join and cooperate with the investigating agency, the interim protection granted by this Court, shall be vacated. Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana submits that State wants to place on record another additional affidavit to show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. List on 27.08.2021.” 2 For last about 2 years, the matter is pending consideration before this Court. Learned State counsel on instructions from Inspector Sukhvir Singh has stated that pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2021 the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. 3 In view of above, the interim order dated 29.07.2021 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4 This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5 This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the petitioner. POOJA SHARMA 2024.02.16 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:022556 6 The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises. 7 It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this court for a direction under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8 Petition stands disposed off. 9 Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
( PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE 15.02.2024 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No POOJA SHARMA 2024.02.16 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
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.