Nitish Singhal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Nitish Singhal, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The decision was based on a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances, the nature of the accusation, 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 took into account that the trial was likely to be prolonged due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. However, 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 concerned court. A crucial condition was imposed: the petitioner must not commit any similar offence after his release; otherwise, his bail in the present case would be liable to be cancelled upon application by the prosecution. The Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and claimed false implication.

Facts

The petitioner, Nitish Singhal, sought regular bail in FIR No. 259 dated March 9, 2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Excise Taxation Officer (State Tax), Panipat, alleging that the firm M/s Ganesh Trading Co. passed undue input tax credit by making invoices without the movement of goods, causing revenue loss. Investigations revealed the firm did not exist at the given address. The proprietor alleged his documents were misused by Janender Kumar Sisodia. The petitioner was arrested, and a charge-sheet was filed. The State opposed the bail petition, highlighting the petitioner's alleged involvement in creating a fake firm and issuing invoices for wrongful input tax credit, causing a loss of over Rs. 9.68 crores. The petitioner claimed he was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated, and was not the proprietor or beneficiary of the defrauded amounts. He also stated he had been granted bail in two other similar cases and had been in custody for over two years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of creating a fake firm, issuing fraudulent invoices, and causing revenue loss to the tune of Rs. 9.68 crores, and the fact that his mobile phone was allegedly used for creating the firm's email account? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, no allegations were made against him initially, and he was subsequently implicated based on a co-accused's statement. He contended that alleged recoveries were planted, he was neither the proprietor nor partner of the firm, nor a beneficiary of the defrauded amounts. He claimed ignorance of the tax evasion and asserted that he had not committed any offence. He further submitted that he had been granted bail in two other similar cases, the offences were triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, he had been in custody for over two years, and the trial was likely to be prolonged, making further detention unnecessary. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, created a fake firm and issued invoices for huge amounts without the movement of goods, leading to wrongful claims of input tax credit and a significant loss to the public exchequer (over Rs. 9.68 crores). They asserted that the petitioner's mobile phone was used for creating the firm's email account, indicating his involvement. Therefore, the petitioner did not deserve regular bail.