Charan Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted the petitioner regular bail. While acknowledging the rival submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for a substantial period of more than 2 years and 3 months. The Court also observed that the petitioner could not be considered the main accused in the alleged fraud. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner's further detention would not serve any useful purpose. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court or magistrate.

Facts

The petitioner, Charan Singh, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 132(1)(B)(C) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused fraudulently registered a firm, M/s Poonam Industries, in the name of a third party. This firm allegedly filed NIL returns for April-September 2018 but showed substantial turnover in October and November 2018. The transactions were with 18 non-existent, fake firms. The petitioner's disclosure statement indicated his role in obtaining documents from the named individual, registering the firm, opening a bank account, and handing over signed cheques and SIM card to the main accused, Anupam Singla, for which he received ₹1,25,000.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having allegedly collected documents for firm registration and bank account opening, and handing over signed cheques and SIM card to the main accused, is sufficiently complicit to deny him regular bail, considering his role as a pawn? The petitioner argued that he was merely a pawn used by the co-accused, Anupam Singla, who was the main perpetrator and beneficiary of the fraud. The petitioner's role was limited to collecting documents and facilitating the firm's registration and bank account opening. He also highlighted that he had been incarcerated for over 2 years and 3 months. The State argued that the petitioner's involvement in facilitating the fraud by registering the firm, opening the bank account, and obtaining signed cheques demonstrated his clear complicity. Furthermore, the State pointed out that the petitioner was involved in five other identical cases, suggesting he was a seasoned criminal undeserving of bail.