Rajat Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the petitioner's age of 25 years, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that he had been in custody for over 5.5 months. It also took into account the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time to conclude. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning for granting bail was primarily based on the humanitarian grounds of the petitioner's age and period of incarceration, coupled with the procedural delays inherent in the judicial process, especially in the context of the pandemic. The ratio decidendi is that prolonged custody of a young individual with no prior record, facing a trial that is likely to be protracted, can be a sufficient ground for granting bail, even if serious allegations are made, without prejudice to the final outcome of the trial. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajat Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 297 dated 25.06.2021, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The FIR alleged that the petitioner and co-accused were unauthorizedly selling mobile phones purchased at cheaper rates from online portals by cloning Apps to bypass purchase limits. The petitioner claimed to be making small profits and that there was no allegation of defrauding the government exchequer by claiming input tax credit. He had been in custody for approximately 5.5 months, was 25 years old, and had no prior criminal record. The State contended that 872 mobiles and Rs. 15,15,000/- cash were recovered from the petitioner, and he had allegedly used GST numbers obtained from government sites belonging to others for his purchases. Challan had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the allegations of unauthorized sale of mobile phones, cloning of Apps, and alleged use of others' GST numbers for purchases, considering his age, period of custody, and lack of criminal antecedents? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR alleged only unauthorized selling of mobile phones and making small profits, with no specific allegation of defrauding the government exchequer through input tax credit. He emphasized his young age (25 years), lack of criminal antecedents, and the significant period of custody (5.5 months) as grounds for bail. He also highlighted the delay in the conclusion of the trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenue/State's arguments: The State contended that a substantial quantity of mobile phones and a large sum of cash were recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, it was alleged that the petitioner had obtained GST numbers from government websites belonging to other individuals and used these for making purchases, indicating a more serious fraudulent intent. The State also noted that challan had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed.