Surender @ Bhura vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The decision was based on several factors, including the nature of the accusation, the evidence against the petitioner, the period of his custody, and the fact that all alleged offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Court also considered that the trial was likely to be prolonged due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail. The interim regular bail granted earlier was made absolute. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on the 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 upon application by the prosecution. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Surender @ Bhura, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The case stems from FIR No.259 dated 09.03.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Excise Taxation Officer (State Tax), alleging that the firm M/s Ganesh Trading Co. had shown huge sales and passed undue input tax credit by making 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 to register the firm and commit tax evasion. The petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted along with co-accused. The petitioner was granted interim bail, and senior officials from the Excise and Taxation Department appeared before the court.

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 allegations and the evidence against him? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, had no connection to the alleged offences, was not named in the FIR, and was not the beneficiary of any defrauded amounts. He claimed no recovery was made from him, he was unaware of the tax evasion, and his role was limited to organizing documents for his employer, Gaurav Bansal. He argued that the offences were triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, the trial would be lengthy, and his continued detention served no useful purpose. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, created a fake firm, issued invoices for huge amounts 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 did not deserve regular bail and the petition should be dismissed.