Pankaj Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail pending trial. The case involves allegations of issuing fake bills through paper firms, causing a loss of over Rs. 33 crores to the Exchequer. The petitioner has been in custody for over 11 months and 18 days. The challan has been presented, and the investigation is stated to be concluded, although the State indicated a supplementary challan was to be filed concerning documentary evidence. The allegations are for offences punishable under Section 132(1)(a), (b), (c), and (i) of the Punjab Goods and Services Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, read with Section 69(1) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint case was filed on March 27, 2023.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered the period of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner (over 11 months and 18 days), the maximum punishment prescribed under the law (5 years), and the fact that the investigation had concluded. It acknowledged the seriousness of economic offences but emphasized the presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court noted that the case was based on documentary evidence and that the allegations of tampering with evidence were not substantiated with specific material. Relying on the dictum in 'Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', the Court found the petitioner entitled to bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, with the pre-condition of surrendering his passport and filing an undertaking not to alter or modify relevant documents, contact details, or company formations under investigation. The Trial Court was given liberty to impose further conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial, considering the alleged economic offence involving a significant financial loss to the State Exchequer and the prolonged period of incarceration, in light of the principles governing bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is 5 years, the trial is a magisterial one, and he has already undergone more than 11 months and 18 days of custody. He cited 'Manoranjana Singh @ Gupta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation' to assert that detention cannot be indefinite and that the seriousness of the charge cannot be the sole test for denying bail. Reliance was also placed on a coordinate bench's decision in 'Maninder Sharma vs. State Tax Officer'. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed the bail plea, citing the huge loss caused to the State Exchequer and the pending supplementary challan. It was not disputed that the supplementary challan pertained to documentary evidence and that the petitioner was in judicial custody.