Hawa Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petitions for regular bail. The primary reasoning was based on the petitioners' long period of custody (over 8 months), their non-involvement in any other cases, and the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate. The Court noted that charges had not yet been framed and the conclusion of the trial was likely to take time. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that prolonged custody, coupled with the absence of prior criminal antecedents and the likelihood of a delayed trial for Magistrate-triable offences, can be grounds for granting bail, even in cases involving allegations of financial fraud. The petitioners were directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The prosecution was granted liberty to apply for cancellation of bail if the petitioners were found involved in other cases or misused the concession of bail.

Facts

These petitions were filed by Hawa Singh and Suresh Kumar @ Jon seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR, registered on 20.11.2018, at the instance of the Excise and Taxation Officer, alleged that the petitioners prepared bogus/shell/fake firms to fraudulently claim input tax credit under GST. The petitioners have been in custody for approximately 9 months and 21 days (Hawa Singh) and 8 months and 1 day (Suresh Kumar). They are stated to be involved in no other cases. The State, while not disputing the factual position regarding custody duration and lack of other cases, opposed the bail prayer, asserting that investigation revealed the creation of shell firms and fraudulent availment of tax credit without actual business.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No.645 dated 20.11.2018, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, considering their period of custody and the nature of the allegations? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they have been in custody for a significant period (over 8 months) and are not involved in any other cases. They also pointed out that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, charges have not yet been framed, and the trial is likely to be prolonged. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposed the bail, submitting that the investigation found the petitioners created shell firms and fraudulently availed tax credit without genuine business transactions. The State relied on the affidavit of the complainant.