Subhash Chander vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 27.03.2021. It also observed that a co-accused, Manoj, had already been released on bail. The Court acknowledged that the conclusion of the trial would take time and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated. Without commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing either party, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Subhash Chander, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. The case involves FIR No. 103 dated 18.06.2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and Section 132 of the GST and CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but was implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The petitioner has been in custody since 27.03.2021. The alleged tax liability is Rs. 36,81,478/-. A co-accused, Manoj, was granted interim bail, which was later made absolute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the GST and CGST Act, 2017, and the Indian Penal Code? The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated based on a co-accused's disclosure. He contended that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is one year, and he has already undergone a sentence exceeding one year. He further submitted that if the tax liability is below Rs. 5 crores, the offence is bailable, and he seeks parity with co-accused Manoj, who was granted bail. The State, however, argued that the petitioner, as a partner/owner of M/s Tirupati Balaji Oil Mills, colluded with co-accused Manoj to cause a loss of Rs. 36,81,478/-.