Janender Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging the serious allegations of creating fake firms and facilitating input tax credit fraud amounting to over Rs. 9.68 crores, the Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the accusation, the evidence against the petitioner, and the period of his custody. It also took into account that all the alleged offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and that the trial is likely to be protracted due to COVID-19 related restrictions. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The interim regular bail granted to the petitioner was made absolute. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail bonds already furnished. A condition was imposed that the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence in the future, failing which his bail could be cancelled upon application by the prosecution. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Janender Kumar, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC in FIR No. 259 dated 09.03.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Excise Taxation Officer alleging that the firm M/s Ganesh Trading Co. had shown huge sales and passed undue input tax credit through invoices without actual movement of goods, causing revenue loss. Investigations revealed the firm did not exist at the given address. The proprietor of the firm alleged the petitioner misused his documents for bank loans. The petitioner was implicated along with co-accused. The police filed a charge-sheet. The petitioner was granted interim bail, and senior officials from the Excise and Taxation Department appeared before the court. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed, and a co-accused was arrested with recovery of laptops. The Excise and Taxation Department reported that M/s Ganesh Trading Co. conducted business with 46 firms, raising invoices of Rs. 1,29,52,83,371/-, resulting in a total tax consideration of Rs. 9,68,67,081/-. Some firms had deposited amounts, while others had input tax credit blocked.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 259 dated 09.03.2019 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC, considering the allegations of creating fake firms and facilitating input tax credit fraud. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated based on the statement of Yogesh Sharma. He claimed to be an innocent employee entrapped by co-accused Nitish Singhal and Surender @ Bhura, who assured him of bank loans. He asserted that he merely procured documents from Yogesh Sharma and handed them over to others who created fake firms. He denied creating any fake firm or directly indulging in tax evasion, stating he was not a beneficiary. He argued that the offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, the trial would be lengthy, and his further detention would serve no useful purpose. He assured he would not abscond, tamper with evidence, or intimidate witnesses. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, created a fake firm and issued invoices for huge amounts without goods movement, wrongfully claiming input tax credit and causing a loss of over Rs. 9.68 crores to the exchequer. Therefore, the petitioner did not deserve regular bail, and the petition should be dismissed.