Rajiv Gupta vs. Geeta

Facts

The petitioner, Rajiv Gupta, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail pending trial. The complaint, filed by Smt. Geeta, Deputy Director of the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Gurugram, is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was initially granted interim bail by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, on March 26, 2020, which has been extended periodically and continues to be in effect. The complaint is scheduled for preliminary evidence recording on August 28, 2024. The respondent opposed the prayer for regular bail, arguing that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is on interim bail.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner is not in custody and is currently on interim bail, which has been extended by the competent court from time to time. It was also acknowledged by both parties that the interim bail granted during Covid-19 has, in general, come to an end, referencing the Supreme Court's order in Manish Jain vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board. However, the Court observed that there was no allegation of misuse of the interim bail concession by the petitioner over the past four years. In light of these circumstances, instead of entertaining the parallel proceedings under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the present petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek regular bail before the Court of competent jurisdiction where the complaint is pending. The Court clarified that its observations were not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail is maintainable when the petitioner is already on interim bail, extended from time to time, and the interim concession granted during Covid-19 has, in general, come to an end as per the Supreme Court's order in Manish Jain vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he has been on interim bail since March 26, 2020, and this concession has been continuously extended. He submitted that the complaint is pending for preliminary evidence recording on August 28, 2024, and therefore, he should be granted regular bail. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner was granted interim bail during the Covid-19 pandemic and that this interim concession has been extended by the learned ACJM/JMIC. Consequently, the respondent argued that the present petition for regular bail is not maintainable.