Govind vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner, an accountant, was not named in the FIR. It was emphasized that the entire alleged GST evasion amount of Rs. 1,12,65,909/- had already been recovered from Susheel Garg and Amit Garg. Furthermore, no input tax credit was credited to the petitioner's account, and he had not withdrawn any GST refund. The Court considered the petitioner's long period of incarceration (since 27.11.2020), the fact that 23 witnesses were yet to be examined, and the likelihood of a delayed trial. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's observation in "Maulana Mohd. Amir's case" that the role of the accused and other circumstances must be considered, not just criminal antecedents. The Court found several debatable issues and arguments in the case, which would be adjudicated during the trial. Therefore, considering these factors, the Court deemed it fit to grant bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Govind, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 42 dated 06.01.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B IPC at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. The FIR was lodged by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Panipat, alleging that Rakesh Kumar, operating M/s Saksham Enterprises, obtained GST registration using forged documents. Investigations revealed the firm was non-existent at the given address, and the bank account provided was for M/s Divine Enterprises, not M/s Saksham Enterprises. It is alleged that Rakesh Kumar used fake documents to avail and pass input tax credit, evading GST amounting to Rs. 1,12,65,909/-. The petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020, and the challan has been presented. The petitioner claims he was not named in the FIR, no recovery has been made from him, and the alleged evaded amount has been recovered from Susheel Garg and Amit Garg.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, an accountant, is entitled to regular bail given his alleged role in a GST evasion scam amounting to Rs. 1,12,65,909/-, considering he was not named in the FIR and the evaded amount has been recovered from other individuals? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC and provisions related to GST evasion). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he is not named in the FIR and has been in custody since 27.11.2020. He argues that the entire evaded GST amount of Rs. 1,12,65,909/- has been recovered from Susheel Garg and Amit Garg, as evidenced by their Section 161 CrPC statements. He asserts there is no incriminating material or link evidence to connect him to opening the firm or issuing invoices, nor has he received any input tax credit. He highlights that only a minor recovery of Rs. 7,000/- was made from him. He relies on judgments in "Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab" and "Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana" to argue that implication based solely on disclosure statements should not prevent bail. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana opposes the bail, arguing that the firms involved were running a racket causing financial loss to the State. They contend that if released, the petitioner might influence the trial, and the heinousness of the offense warrants dismissal.