Nitesh vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petitions for bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over 14 months. It was also observed that, as informed by the State counsel, no order quantifying the tax involved had been passed. Furthermore, there were no allegations that any inquiry or recovery was to be made from the petitioner at that stage, nor had the petitioner been involved in any similar activity during his interim release. Considering the totality of the facts, including the duration of custody and the lack of immediate recovery or inquiry needs, bail was granted. The petitioner was directed to furnish surety bonds of Rs. 5 lakh to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. The Court clarified that the State could pursue appropriate legal remedies for the petitioner's custody if new evidence emerged. The observations made were not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Nitesh, filed two petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 439 read with Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail and default bail. These petitions relate to FIR No. 20 dated January 25, 2019, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132(i) B, C of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations involve the registration of non-existing firms and opening bank accounts by impersonating another individual to claim bogus Input Tax Credit, with alleged tax evasion exceeding Rs. 12 crores. The petitioner was arrested on June 6, 2019, and was released on interim bail from March 27, 2020, to April 16, 2021, due to the COVID-19 situation. The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 14 months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail and default bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 20 dated January 25, 2019, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132(i) B, C of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there are contradictions in the prosecution's case, as the concern owned by the petitioner is a proprietorship, yet bank records show two individuals operating the account. It was also argued that the prosecution alleged the petitioner impersonated Ganesh, while simultaneously alleging that Parveen impersonated Ganesh. The petitioner had already spent nearly 14 months in custody. Respondent's arguments: The State opposed the bail application, submitting that further investigation might be required from the petitioner, especially as a co-accused, Parveen, had been arrested. The State also indicated that no order quantifying the tax involved had been passed to date.