Yogesh Bhardwaj vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The decision was based on several factors, including the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the accusation, the evidence against the petitioner, and the period of his custody. Crucially, the Court noted that all the alleged offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and that the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time 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 earlier was made absolute, with the petitioner to be released on bail bonds already furnished. A condition was imposed that the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence after his release, failing which his bail could be cancelled.

Facts

The petitioner, Yogesh Bhardwaj, seeks regular bail in FIR No. 259 dated 09.03.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by the Excise Taxation Officer, Panipat, alleging that the firm M/s Ganesh Trading Co. had shown huge sales to various dealers and passed undue input tax credit by issuing invoices without the movement of goods, causing revenue loss. Investigations revealed that the firm did not exist at the given address. The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Janender Kumar Sisodia, and that he had no connection with the firm, having worked for only 28 days for another accused, Gaurav Bansal. The prosecution contends that the petitioner, along with co-accused, created a fake firm and issued invoices for wrongful input tax credit, causing a loss of over Rs. 9.68 crores.

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 Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering the nature of the accusations and the evidence against him? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and was not named in the FIR. He asserted no connection with the firm M/s Ganesh Trading Co. and claimed to be a poor man who worked for a short period under another accused. He also contended that the offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and that his continued detention would serve no useful purpose, especially given the likely delay in trial due to COVID-19 restrictions. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, created a fake firm, issued invoices without goods movement, and wrongfully claimed input tax credit, causing a loss of over Rs. 9.68 crores to the public exchequer. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve regular bail.