Ankur vs. State Of Haryana
Held
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the submission by the State counsel that the petitioner had joined the investigation, cooperated with the investigating agency, and was no longer required for custodial interrogation. The Court explicitly stated that the decision was made without commenting on the merits of the case. The interim order dated 14.10.2021 granting bail was made absolute, subject to the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No specific issues were expressly left undecided, as the primary issue of anticipatory bail was resolved based on the State's submission.
Facts
The petitioner, Ankur, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR was registered on 30.04.2019 at Police Station Arya Nagar, Rohtak, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent-State filed a status report. The State counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency, and was no longer required for custodial interrogation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 138 dated 30.04.2019 registered at Police Station Arya Nagar, Rohtak, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, and Section 132(1)(b), (c) of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, implying a need for protection from arrest. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel beyond the prayer for bail. Respondent's contention: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation, cooperated with the investigating agency, and was no longer required for custodial interrogation. This submission implicitly suggests that custodial interrogation is not necessary, thereby supporting the grant of bail.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023:PHHC:125669 203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43664-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.09.2023 ANKUR
.....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** SUVIR SEHGAL
, J (ORAL)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail in:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Section(s) 138 30.04.2019 Arya Nagar Rohtak 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, Section 132(1) (b), (c) of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Status report by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, filed on behalf of the respondent-State, is taken on record.
Upon instructions from PSI, Naveen, State counsel submits that petitioner has joined the investigation, co-operated with the Investigating Agency and he is no longer required for custodial interrogation.
In view of the facts, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is a
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.