Ravinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Ravinder Singh, filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. He was arrested in connection with a complaint registered for offences under the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging a scam involving fake rent notes and bills. The petitioner is accused of floating a firm, M/s Guru Har Rai Trading Co., using his credentials and causing a loss of Rs. 5.40 crores to the government exchequer. Allegations include fraudulent practices like forging a landlord's signature on a rent deed, creating fake firms, generating bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) through circular trading, and declaring fake movements of goods. The petitioner allegedly avoided summons from the investigating officer. He has been in custody for over 1 year, 2 months, and 9 days.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that the State counsel could not dispute that the petitioner was at least on par with a co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court considered the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court regarding bail, including the factors to be considered (prima facie case, gravity of charge, severity of punishment, danger of absconding, character, likelihood of repetition, tampering with witnesses, and thwarting justice). The Court also acknowledged the 'tripod test' (flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses). While recognizing the seriousness of the allegations of financial loss, dishonesty, forgery, and cheating, the Court emphasized that prolonged judicial custody, especially after the completion of investigation and filing of challan, could violate Article 21. The Court found no good reason to continue the judicial custody, particularly as some co-accused were yet to be arrested. The Court granted bail on stringent conditions, including surrendering the passport, furnishing bail/surety bonds, and providing an undertaking not to alter documents or company/firm details. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of causing a significant loss to the state exchequer and the nature of the economic offence? 2. Whether the petitioner's continued detention violates his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially after the completion of investigation and presentation of challan? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been incarcerated for over 1 year, 2 months, and 9 days, while the maximum punishment for the offence is 5 years, and the trial is by a Magistrate. He also relied on a previous order granting bail to a co-accused, Pankaj Kumar (CRM-M-43188-2023). The petitioner contended that the case is based on documentary evidence and not oral testimony, and continued custody would violate Article 21. He also pointed out that some co-accused are yet to be arrested. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: The State opposed the bail plea, contending that the petitioner caused a huge loss to the state exchequer and, given the seriousness of the allegations, he does not deserve release on bail.