Surender Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted the petitioner regular bail. The decision was based on several factors, including the petitioner's custody period of almost a year, the fact that a similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the likelihood that the conclusion of the trial would take considerable time. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate.

Facts

The petitioner, Surender Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 12 dated January 9, 2019, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. The FIR alleged that a co-accused floated bogus firms to fraudulently claim input tax credit on bogus sales, and one such firm was opened in the petitioner's name using his Aadhaar card and other documents. The petitioner, an illiterate mason, claimed he was misled by the co-accused and that no recovery was made from him. He also pointed to a similarly situated co-accused, Mimanshu Singla, who was granted bail. The petitioner had been in custody for approximately a year.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 12 dated January 9, 2019, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, considering his period of custody, the alleged role, and the bail granted to a similarly situated co-accused? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a firm was opened in his name using his documents by a co-accused, and he, being an illiterate mason, was taken advantage of. He argued that no recovery was made from him and that a similarly situated co-accused, Mimanshu Singla, had been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. He also highlighted his period of custody (almost a year) and lack of criminal antecedents. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel filed a custody certificate confirming the petitioner's custody for 11 months and 28 days. Upon instructions, the State counsel stated that although charges had been framed, no prosecution witness had been examined.