Ashish Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, considered the submissions made by both parties. It noted that the primary evidence against the petitioner was his own disclosure statement and that nothing was recovered in pursuance thereof. The Court also took into account the petitioner's period of custody (approximately 4 months), the completion of the investigation, the presentation of the challan, and the fact that the offenses are triable by a Magistrate. The Court directed the petitioner's release on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashish Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 111 dated 25.04.2019, registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal. The FIR was filed at the instance of the Excise and Taxation Officer, alleging that a firm, M/s B.K. Steel, with GSTIN No. 06KDCPS2189R1ZI, was created using a non-existent proprietor, Bijendra Kumar Sharma. The firm allegedly caused a loss of Rs. 1.00 crore to the State Exchequer through bogus sales without proper purchases. The petitioner's involvement stemmed from his disclosure statement, admitting he was advised to create a forged firm by a co-accused, Sonu Kumar Khushwaha, and that he prepared a duplicate PAN card and bank account for this purpose. The petitioner claimed he was not a beneficiary, no amount was transferred to his account, and the investigation is complete with the challan presented.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 111 dated 25.04.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC, and other relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and IT Act, 2000, considering his role in the alleged creation of a non-existent firm for fraudulent purposes. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the primary evidence against him is his own disclosure statement, from which nothing was recovered. He asserted he is not a beneficiary of the alleged fraud, as no funds were transferred to his account, and the co-accused's account was linked to the GST account. He highlighted that he has been in custody for approximately four months, the investigation is complete, the challan has been presented, and the offenses are triable by a Magistrate. He also pointed to an identical prior case where he was not a beneficiary. Respondent's arguments: The State counsel did not dispute that the primary evidence against the petitioner was his disclosure statement and that no recovery was made pursuant to it.