Vinod Bhati vs. State Of Haryana And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Vinod Bhati, sought anticipatory bail in relation to a Panchnama dated June 28, 2021, filed by the Inspector, CGST, District Faridabad. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had voluntarily appeared before the Proper Officer (respondent No. 2) and joined the inquiry, despite not having received a formal notice. Counsel for respondent No. 2 concurred with this fact and stated that the petitioner had cooperated during the inquiry, and the department did not require the petitioner's custody as there was no arrest authorization at that time. The Court noted that the petitioner's cooperation and voluntary appearance were not disputed.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. The decision was based on the petitioner's voluntary appearance before the Proper Officer and his subsequent cooperation during the inquiry proceedings. The Court acknowledged that the department, represented by respondent No. 2, did not dispute the petitioner's cooperation and did not require his custody. Therefore, the petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to continue cooperating with the inquiry as and when called upon. If the petitioner were to be arrested, he would be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also made it clear that if the petitioner failed to cooperate, the department could move an application for cancellation of bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of his voluntary appearance and cooperation with the inquiry proceedings, as per Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner argued that he had proactively joined the inquiry and cooperated with the authorities. He further contended that the department had not disputed his cooperation and did not require his custody, indicating that his presence was secured and further custodial interrogation was not necessary. The petitioner relied on his conduct of appearing before the Proper Officer and cooperating with the investigation. The respondent (State of Haryana and another) did not present any argument against granting anticipatory bail, having conceded to the petitioner's cooperation and the department's lack of need for custody. Their concurrence with the petitioner's counsel's submissions implies an absence of opposition to the relief sought on the grounds of cooperation.
Sections Cited
Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29692-2021 Date of decision: 21.02.2022 Vinod Bhati ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Addl. A. G. Haryana. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** HARNARESH SINGH GILL
, J.
(ORAL)
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Panchnama dated 28.06.2021, filed by the Inspector, CGST, District Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench, which reads as under: “Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no notice was received from respondent No.2 to make appearance before Proper Officer, however, petitioner on his own had gone to the office of respondent No.2 (Proper Officer) and joined the inquiry. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has given concurrence to above said MANGAL SINGH 2022.02.22 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-29692-2021 /2/ fact and further submits that petitioner has co-operated during the course of inquiry and the Department do not require custody of petitioner as till date there is no arrest authorization of petitioner. Adjourned to 28.09.2021.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has appeared before respondent No.2 and joined the inquiry. He further submits that the petitioner will cooperate during the course of the inquiry, if required. On 25.08.2021, the factum of joining the inquiry by the petitioner, was not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has joined the inquiry and cooperated during the course of inquiry coupled with the fact that the concerned department does not require his custody, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner that he will continue cooperating during the course of inquiry as and when called upon to do so and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that if pursuant to and in compliance with this order, the petitioner does not cooperate with the inquiry proceedings, the concerned department would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail. 21.02.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2022.02.22 17:37 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.