Sonu Kumar Khushwah vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered the long custody period of the petitioner (approximately 8 months and 24 days) and the fact that no investigation was pending against him. It was also noted that the trial was likely to take time to conclude, as only one prosecution witness had been examined so far. The Court did not comment on the merits of the case. The petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Sonu Kumar Khushwaha, sought regular bail in FIR No. 111 dated 25.04.2019, registered under various sections of the IPC, CGST Act, and IT Act. The FIR, lodged at the instance of the Excise and Taxation Officer, alleged the creation of a non-existent firm, M/s B.K. Steel, using forged documents of Bijendra Kumar Sharma, leading to a loss of Rs. 1.00 crore to the State Exchequer through bogus sales. The petitioner was accused of advising co-accused Sandeep Kumar to create forged firms, including M/s B.K. Steel and M/s Mansi Alloys, using forged documents. The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 8 months and 24 days. The prosecution claimed the petitioner raised bogus invoices exceeding Rs. 5.00 crores to claim GST tax credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 111 dated 25.04.2019, considering his period of custody and the stage of the trial? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner's counsel relied on a previous order granting bail to a co-accused, Ashish Kumar, in CRM-M-41641-2021. It was argued that the primary evidence against the petitioner was his own disclosure statement, and no amount was transferred to his account, although a co-accused's account was attached with the GST account. The petitioner was not a beneficiary. The investigation was complete, challan presented, and the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody for about 8 months and 24 days, and out of 40 prosecution witnesses, only one had been examined, indicating a delay in trial conclusion. Respondent's arguments: The State counsel conceded that the primary evidence against the petitioner was his disclosure statement and nothing was recovered in pursuance thereof. However, the State counsel submitted that the investigation disclosed that the petitioner had raised bogus invoices of more than Rs. 5.00 crores for causing loss to the government exchequer by taking GST tax credit. The petitioner was not named in the FIR.