Vipul Jindal vs. State Of Haryana Through Hgst Officer, Panipat

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's bail application. The primary reasoning was that the trial had come to a standstill due to the interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in writ petitions challenging the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that charges had not yet been framed and that the trial would take considerable time to conclude. Given these circumstances, and the fact that the petitioner's further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the Court deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail. The Court also took into account that co-accused had been granted bail and that the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal cases. The operative direction was to admit the petitioner to bail to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Vipul Jindal, is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 132 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This is his second bail petition, the first having been dismissed as withdrawn on February 22, 2021. The petitioner has been in custody since September 12, 2020. The trial in this case has come to a standstill due to interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in writ petitions challenging the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's co-accused, including the alleged kingpin Rajesh Mittal, have been granted bail. The prosecution alleges a loss of approximately Rs. 80 crores to the State exchequer due to fake transactions and bogus firms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the ongoing challenge to the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the consequent standstill of the trial? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the trial has come to a standstill due to the Division Bench's orders in the writ petitions challenging the GST Act provisions. He argues that his further incarceration serves no useful purpose, especially since co-accused, including the alleged kingpin, have been granted bail. He also states he is not involved in any other criminal cases. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State counsel does not dispute that the trial is stalled. However, they argue that the petitioner, in connivance with his brother-in-law Rajesh Mittal, caused a significant loss of Rs. 80 crores through fake transactions. They point to money transactions into the personal accounts of the accused as evidence of complicity. While conceding that Rajesh Mittal has been released on bail, they note he was in custody for a longer period.