Gaurav Behl vs. State Of Haryana
Held
The Court allowed both petitions for regular bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioners had been in custody since 12.04.2018; a co-accused, Shubham Khandelwal, had already been granted bail by an order dated 04.12.2018; the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate's Court; and the trial of the case is still likely to take some time. The Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners further. The operative direction was that petitioners Gaurav Behl and Rakesh Arora be admitted to regular bail upon furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Judge/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate.
Facts
The petitioners, Gaurav Behl and Rakesh Arora, filed petitions under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail. They are accused in FIR No.197 dated 05.03.2018, registered at Police Station DLF, Sector-29, Gurugram. The FIR was initially under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, with Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Sections 66-C, 66-D of the IT Act, 2000, added later. The petitioners have been in custody since 12.04.2018. A co-accused, Shubham Khandelwal, was granted bail on 04.12.2018. The case is triable by a Magistrate, and the trial is ongoing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considering their period of custody, the bail granted to a co-accused, and the nature of the offences? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that they have been in custody since 12.04.2018. They highlighted that a co-accused, Shubham Khandelwal, has already been admitted to bail. Furthermore, they argued that the offences alleged are triable only by a Magistrate, and since the trial is expected to take more time, their continued detention would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, they should be released on bail. Respondent's Arguments: The State of Haryana opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the petitioners are involved in multiple cases of a similar nature and are thus not entitled to regular bail.
Sections Cited
Section 439, Section 132 CGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 220+234 Date of Decision: 02.04.2019. (1) CRM-M No.48111 of 2018 Gaurav Behl .....Petitioner. VERSUS State of Haryana .....Respondent AND (2) CRM-M No.10540 of 2019 Rakesh Arora .....Petitioner. VERSUS State of Haryana .....Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN
----
Present: Mr. R.S. Khosla, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Ishrat Phulka, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-48411-2018). Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-10540-2019). Mr. Ashish Sanghi, DAG, Haryana, with Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.
**** Shekher Dhawan, J. The aforementioned two petitions under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioners Gaurav Behl and Rakesh Arora, in case F.I.R. No.197 dated 05.03.2018, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 177, 200, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (Section 132 CGST Act, 2017 and Sections 66-C, 66-D of the I.T. Act, 2000 added lateron), registered at Police Station DLF, Sector-29, Gurugram. JITENDER 2019.04.02 16:53 I agree to specified portions of this document
-2- Learned counsel representing
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.