Amit Sharma vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Held

The Court noted that the respondents' counsel was not in a position to dispute the petitioner's submission that the summoning of the petitioner was done directly by the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants. The petitioner, on instructions, undertook to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from the date of the order and apply for regular bail. The Court directed that if the petitioner surrenders and applies for regular bail within the stipulated period, his application shall be decided by the concerned court on the same day. The Court disposed of the petition with these directions. Any pending applications, if any, were rendered infructuous as the main case was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Sharma, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The petition pertains to complaint No. COMA-399-2022, which involves allegations under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 20(xv) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner contended that he was not associated with the investigation or inquiry and that the Chief Judicial Magistrate directly issued Non-Bailable Warrants for his summoning. The respondents did not dispute this fact. The petitioner, on instructions, stated he would surrender before the concerned court within two weeks and apply for regular bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, without the petitioner being associated during the investigation or inquiry, warrants anticipatory bail? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the direct issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, without prior association in the investigation, justified anticipatory bail. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's assertion regarding the direct issuance of warrants. The core of the petitioner's argument revolved around the procedural impropriety of the warrant issuance in his specific case, seeking protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The respondents' lack of dispute suggests an implicit acknowledgment of the factual premise presented by the petitioner.