Dheeraj Garg vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Dheeraj Garg, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 408 dated 29.9.2022, registered at Police Station Gadpuri, District Palwal, under Sections 408, 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 7-A, 13, 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR pertains to allegations of evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST) by Excise & Taxation Officers (ETOs) and Taxation Inspectors (TIs) in connivance with private transporters. The petitioner, who was posted as Additional Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Panchkula, was nominated in the FIR subsequently for allegedly not reporting the matter to the police promptly after the scam surfaced in July 2021. The petitioner claims he was seeking information from the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Palwal, through letters dated 22.10.2021, 10.1.2022, and 18.4.2022, and the FIR was lodged on 29.9.2022, after receiving a report on 27.9.2022. The main accused ETO and TI have already been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner has been in custody for approximately two months, and the challan is yet to be presented.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated subsequently on the premise of not taking prompt action for the registration of the FIR. However, the Court observed that the petitioner had been soliciting the requisite information from the concerned officer through multiple letters, and the FIR was lodged only after the report was furnished. Furthermore, the Court took into consideration that the main accused officials, Harish Batra (AETO) and Jitender Joon (TI), had already been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner had been in custody for approximately two months, and the challan was yet to be presented. The Court concluded that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of the trial was likely to take time. Therefore, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's subsequent nomination in the FIR, based on the alleged delay in reporting the matter and lodging the FIR, warrants his continued detention, considering he was not named in the FIR and had been seeking information from the relevant authorities? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he is not named in the FIR and was nominated only for allegedly not reporting the matter promptly. He argues that he was actively seeking the necessary information from the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Palwal, as evidenced by his letters, and the FIR was lodged after receiving the report. He further submits that since the main accused officials have been granted anticipatory bail, he should also be entitled to regular bail. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State argues that the petitioner's delay in lodging the FIR, despite concrete evidence of co-accused involvement, suggests he was complicit. The State also points to a confessional statement by a co-accused implicating the petitioner and evidence of the petitioner amassing wealth beyond his known sources of income, indicating his involvement in the scam. The State notes the petitioner has been in custody for about two months and the challan is yet to be presented.