Shyam Pratap Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had joined the investigation as per the order dated 19.03.2021 and that the State counsel, on instructions, confirmed that no further interrogation of the petitioner was required. Furthermore, the State counsel informed the Court that an untrace report had been submitted by the investigating agency. In light of these submissions, the Court found no impediment to making the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner absolute. The petitioner was directed to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. The Court also reserved liberty for the Investigating Agency to approach the Court if the petitioner failed to cooperate in the future. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, Shyam Pratap Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0009 dated 06.01.2020, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by Pradeep Singh, representative of Century Metal Recycling Limited. The petitioner, proprietor of C.S. Enterprises and S.V. Enterprises, supplied contract labour to the complainant company. Allegations included submitting false bills for Provident Fund (PF) and Goods and Services Tax (GST) to claim excess amounts, with a total alleged loss of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- to the complainant company due to partial deposit of PF and GST. The petitioner had allegedly admitted guilt and executed undertakings to pay shortfalls. The petitioner contended no criminal involvement, no proceedings initiated by PF or GST authorities, and that the complainant company owed him money. He also stated he had filed a civil suit for account reconciliation and was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 0009 dated 06.01.2020 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, considering the allegations of financial irregularities concerning Provident Fund and Goods and Services Tax deposits? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he had joined the investigation as directed by a previous order of the Court and that no criminal proceedings had been initiated against him by the PF or GST authorities. He claimed the complainant company owed him a significant amount for manpower supplied and that he had filed a civil suit for account reconciliation. He expressed willingness to make good any shortfalls and cooperate fully with the investigation. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation as per the Court's order and no further interrogation was required. The State also informed the Court that an untrace report had been submitted by the investigating agency.