Praveen Kumar vs. State Of Haryana
Facts
The petitioner, Praveen Kumar, invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 7 dated 07.01.2019. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 132(1)(B) and 132(1)(C) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was responsible for depositing tax liability for the firm M/s Vaishali Industries but failed to do so despite having information on the portal. The petitioner had been in custody for 2 years, 3 months, and 27 days. The State opposed the bail application, highlighting the petitioner's involvement in twelve other cases.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. While acknowledging the importance of criminal antecedents at the bail stage, the Court held that the appreciation of evidence must be confined to the specific case under trial. Denying bail solely based on the pendency of other cases could lead to an unjust denial of bail. The Court noted that the trial was nearing its end, with only two formal witnesses remaining out of a total of 47. The next hearing date was set for 22.01.2024. Given that the trial was at its fag end, the Court found no fruitful purpose in keeping the petitioner incarcerated. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 7 dated 07.01.2019, considering the allegations of tax evasion and his criminal antecedents? The petitioner argued that the allegations pertain to a failure to deposit tax liability. The State argued for the dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the petitioner's incarceration period and his involvement in twelve other cases, portraying him as a habitual offender. The State relied on the custody certificate to demonstrate the period of detention.
Sections Cited
Section 439 Cr.P.C., Section 132(1)(B) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Section 132(1)(C) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Section 132(1)(B) of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 132(1)(C) of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
294 2024:PHHC:005744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37424-2023 DECIDED ON: 16.01.2024
PRAVEEN KUMAR
.....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, DAG, Haryana. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The juri iction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.7, dated 07.01.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 132(1)(B), 132(1)(C) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as well as Section 132(1) (B & C) of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, registered at Police Station City Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations qua petitioner is that a responsibility has been fastened upon him to deposit the tax liability but he did not do so despite having information on the portal of the firm M/s Vaishali Industries, is doing the business of service recipients, as has been detailed in the FIR.
On the other hand, learned Stat
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.