Govind vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court noted that the petitioner is an accountant in one of the firms run by the accused Jarnail Singh and that the State's reply does not attribute any specific role to the petitioner in the commission of the offense, beyond his duties as an accountant. The Court also observed that all accused have been granted regular bail by different courts. Furthermore, the Court considered that the offenses are bailable and triable by a Magistrate. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial is not likely to conclude soon, and considering the period of incarceration, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations would not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Govind, an accountant at M/s Zensar Enterprises, Panipat, was apprehended on November 10, 2020, in connection with FIR No. 27 dated January 6, 2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B IPC. The primary allegations involve the firm's proprietor, Jarnail Singh, registering the firm under the CGST Act and HGST Act using forged documents to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC). This modus operandi led to multiple FIRs against various firms. The petitioner's firm is alleged to have committed a fraud of 64 lacs, which was subsequently recovered from beneficiaries. The petitioner argues he is merely an accountant with no specific role in the offense and that similar co-accused have been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Govind, an accountant, is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 27 dated 06.01.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B IPC, considering his alleged role and the amount of fraud. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been incarcerated for a significant period and acted solely as an accountant, preparing account books without a specific role in the commission of the offense. He argues that GST embezzlement offenses up to five crores are bailable, and no recovery has been made from him. Furthermore, he highlights that similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail by different courts, citing orders dated April 19, 2021, and June 29, 2021. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, asserting that the firms involved were running a racket causing financial loss to the State. The State argues that releasing the petitioner on bail might lead to him influencing the trial and that the heinousness of the offense warrants dismissal of the petition.