Shreya Aggarwal @ Shreya vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The primary issue revolved around the permissibility of filing a second complaint with identical allegations after the petitioner had already been granted bail in a prior proceeding based on the same facts. The Court noted that the State's reply, while attempting to differentiate the cases, admitted that the allegations in the present FIR were identical to those in the previous complaint, in which the petitioner had secured bail on 18.05.2021. The Court found it unacceptable that the benefit of bail, granted on identical allegations, was denied by filing a second complaint. The Court reasoned that this practice could lead to harassment and circumvent the relief granted. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one surety, and subject to specific conditions including not leaving India without permission, not inducing witnesses, and not alienating her immovable properties.

Facts

The petitioner, Shreya Aggarwal, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0030 dated 13.03.2021, registered at Police Station PAU, Ludhiana, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to cheating and forgery, and Section 201 IPC. The petitioner's counsel argued that a previous complaint was filed in 2020 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Punjab State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with identical allegations. In that prior matter, the petitioner had been granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 18.05.2021. The petitioner contends that the GST authorities are not permitted to file a second complaint on the same allegations. The present FIR was registered shortly after the petitioner secured bail in the previous case, leading to her re-arrest on 18.05.2021. She has been in custody since 09.12.2020. The Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissed her bail application in the current case on 04.04.2022. The State's reply acknowledged the identical nature of allegations but claimed factual differences and denied an FIR for the same occurrence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the registration of a second complaint by the GST authorities with identical allegations, after the petitioner was granted regular bail in a prior complaint based on the same facts, constitutes harassment and is legally permissible? (Question of law turning on principles of double jeopardy and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 0030 dated 13.03.2021, considering her prior grant of bail on identical allegations and her continued custody? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that lodging a second complaint with identical allegations after she secured bail in the first instance is impermissible and amounts to harassment. She relied on the fact that she was granted bail on 18.05.2021 in a case with identical allegations and was subsequently arrested again on the same day for the present FIR. She also highlighted that the State's reply, while claiming factual differences, admitted the identical nature of allegations. Respondent's contentions: The State filed a reply reiterating the contents of the complaint. While acknowledging the identical nature of allegations in the previous complaint, it stated in paragraph 10 of the reply that the facts of the present case are different and that no FIR was registered in relation to the same occurrence.