Gaurav Bansal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Gaurav Bansal. The decision was based on several factors, including the nature of the accusations, the evidence against the petitioner, the period of his custody (over two years), and the fact that all alleged offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Court also considered that the trial is likely to be prolonged due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. A condition was imposed that the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence after his release, failing which his bail could be cancelled upon application by the prosecution. The Court found the petitioner's arguments regarding his alleged false implication and prior bail orders in other cases persuasive for the purpose of granting bail at this stage.

Facts

The petitioner, Gaurav Bansal, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail 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 (State Tax), Panipat, alleging that the firm M/s Ganesh Trading Co. had shown huge sales and passed undue input tax credit through invoices without movement of goods, causing revenue loss. Investigations revealed the firm did not exist at the given address. The proprietor of the firm alleged his documents were misused by Janender Kumar Sisodia. The petitioner was arrested along with co-accused. The State opposed the bail petition, highlighting the alleged creation of a fake firm and issuance of invoices for wrongful input tax credit, causing a loss of over Rs.9.68 crores. The Excise and Taxation Department informed that out of 46 firms dealing with M/s Ganesh Trading Co., some had deposited tax amounts, while others had input tax credit blocked. Recovery of the balance amount was still awaited.

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 nature of accusations and the period of custody? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner claims he has been falsely implicated based on the disclosure statements of co-accused Surender @ Bhura, Nitish Singhal, and Yogesh Bhardwaj. - He asserts he was running his own business as M/s Star Traders, Delhi, and the said co-accused were his employees who fled with cash. - He argues that a previous FIR (No.222 dated 08.06.2018) was registered against these employees in Delhi, and recoveries were made from them, leading to their false implication of the petitioner. - The petitioner states his business dealings with M/s Ram Traders and a Rs.25 lakhs transfer were part of legitimate business, not related to M/s Ganesh Trading Co. - He contends that the alleged recovery of office tools does not connect him to the offences. - The petitioner highlights that he has been granted bail in two other cases by this Court and that the alleged offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. - He has been in custody for over two years, and the trial is likely to be lengthy. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The petitioner, along with co-accused, created a fake firm and issued invoices without goods movement for wrongful input tax credit claims, causing a loss of over Rs.9.68 crores to the exchequer. - The petitioner does not deserve regular bail due to the gravity of the alleged offences.