Rahul Sharma vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court accepted the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal of the bail petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not decide on the merits of the bail application or the underlying charges. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the petitioner's counsel choosing not to press the petition. The ratio decidendi is that a petitioner can withdraw their petition at any stage, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn, without any adjudication on the substantive issues. No operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided as the petition was withdrawn.

Facts

The petitioner, Rahul Sharma, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. pending trial. The case involves FIR No. 91 dated 04.04.2019, registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal. The charges include offenses under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 201, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B), the CGST Act, 2017 (Sections 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv)), and the IT Act, 2000 (Sections 66, 66D, and 71). The petitioner is the appellant, and the State of Haryana is the respondent. The tax period is not specified. The order under challenge is the FIR and the ongoing criminal proceedings. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history relevant is the filing of the bail petition before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. pending trial in FIR No. 91 dated 04.04.2019, registered under Sections 201, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Sections 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv) CGST Act, 2017, and Sections 66, 66D, 71 IT Act, 2000. Petitioner's contentions: The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, did not press the petition and prayed for its withdrawal. Respondent's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the learned DAG, Haryana, on the merits of the bail application.