Kamal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the nature of the offenses, which are triable by a Magistrate, and the fact that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 03.03.2021. It was noted that the trial had not yet commenced and was unlikely to conclude in the near future. The Court also took into account the petitioner's submission regarding the ownership of the premises where the firm was allegedly situated, supported by a rent agreement, which indicated the petitioner's lack of direct involvement with the property. The Court explicitly stated that its decision was without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamal, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 14 dated 10.01.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The FIR alleged that a firm, M/s D.S. Traders, with GSTIN 06EQIPD3488P1Z6, was registered on 03.08.2018, with Dalbir Singh as its proprietor. Preliminary inquiry revealed the firm was non-existent at the given address. The firm allegedly raised 70 bills amounting to Rs. 10,96,90,929/-, claimed input tax credit of Rs. 70,96,733/- based on 60 bogus purchase bills totaling Rs. 10,79,56,122/-, causing a loss to the government exchequer. The petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2021 and has been in custody since. The investigation is complete, but charges are yet to be framed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of criminal conspiracy related to a bogus firm and input tax credit fraud, and the stage of the trial? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the primary allegations were against co-accused Dalbir Singh, who ran the firm. The petitioner argued that he did not make any wrongful gain and that his further detention was unnecessary as the investigation was complete. He also presented a rent agreement to show he had no concern with the property where the firm was allegedly located. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner facilitated the offense by providing fake documents like Aadhaar cards to the main accused. They further stated that the firm was being run at a place owned by the petitioner. The State acknowledged that the investigation was complete but charges were yet to be framed.