Saurabh Talwar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's custody period since December 12, 2020, the completion of the investigation, and the presentation of the challan. The Court noted that the case appears to be based on documentary evidence, and the trial is likely to be protracted. Regarding the State's apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the Court found that the State counsel could not justify these concerns with material on record, deeming the objection to be taken in a mechanical manner. Consequently, the Court found it fit and proper to grant regular bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. Any observations made were stated to be for the purpose of deciding the bail application only and not to affect the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Saurabh Talwar, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, created multiple firms, forged GSTIN numbers, and utilized dummy accounts. They allegedly availed input tax credit through bogus sales without paying GST, causing a significant loss to the State exchequer. The investigation has been completed, and a challan has been presented before the competent court. The petitioner has been in custody since December 12, 2020. The case primarily relies on documentary evidence, and the trial is expected to take considerable time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of his prolonged custody and the fact that the investigation is complete and challan has been presented, considering the case is based on documentary evidence? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the allegations against him are false. He submitted that the investigation is complete, challan presented, and he has been in custody since December 12, 2020. He argued that keeping him in custody would serve no useful purpose as the trial would be lengthy, and the case is based on documentary evidence. Respondent's (State of Haryana) argument: The State argued that a huge loss was caused to the exchequer due to the petitioner claiming input tax credit through bogus sales and fabricating documents. They opposed bail, referring to an affidavit detailing the petitioner's modus operandi and raising concerns about potential tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released.