Vishal Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the High Court for anticipatory bail and had withdrawn that petition with liberty to surrender before the Trial Court and apply for regular bail. However, the petitioner failed to surrender. The Court found no explanation for this failure. Furthermore, on merits, the Court was of the view that the petitioner's role in the alleged GST evasion scam warranted thorough investigation to ascertain the modus operandi and the potential involvement of other individuals, including departmental officials. The Court concluded that the petition was sans merit. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in relation to the bail application, as the FIR was registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Vishal Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 21 dated 4.11.2022, registered at Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali, Punjab, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 7-A, and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged based on secret information regarding a Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion scam, allegedly involving departmental officials. The petitioner was nominated as an accused based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, allegedly acting as a "passer" to facilitate the movement of vehicles with fake or insufficient bills for scrap transportation. The petitioner had previously filed a petition for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 5.5.2023, with liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of his alleged role in a GST evasion scam and the previous withdrawal of his anticipatory bail petition. The petitioner argued that he should be granted anticipatory bail. The specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel are not detailed in the judgment, beyond the submission in the previous withdrawn petition to surrender and apply for regular bail. The State, through the AAG, argued against granting anticipatory bail. The State's contentions, as inferred from the court's reasoning, likely focused on the seriousness of the alleged GST evasion scam, the petitioner's alleged role as a facilitator, and the need for thorough investigation to uncover the modus operandi and involvement of others, including departmental officials. The State also highlighted the petitioner's failure to surrender as per the previous court order.