Parveen Mehta vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that it was not disputed that similarly placed accused in other FIRs, involving fictitious firms floated by Anupam Singla, had been granted bail. The petitioner had been in custody for over six months, and the investigation was complete with the challan presented. The Court acknowledged that the conclusion of the trial was likely to be delayed due to restricted court hearings because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Considering these factors, the Court found sufficient grounds to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court. The petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, Parveen Mehta, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/201/120-B IPC. The FIR was filed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Hisar, alleging that the petitioner opened a fictitious firm, M/s Krishan Cotton Industries, and fraudulently availed input tax credit amounting to Rs. 2,39,19,495/-. The petitioner claims his identity documents were misused by Anupam Singla, who floated numerous bogus firms, including the one in question, with the petitioner listed as proprietor. The petitioner states he is an electrician running a small shop and was allegedly paid Rs. 15,000-20,000 per month by Anupam Singla, a fact disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since December 17, 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given his period of custody and the nature of the alleged offences, considering the prosecution's version and the petitioner's defense? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. He argued that his identity documents were misused by Anupam Singla to float bogus firms, including M/s Krishan Cotton Industries, where the petitioner was shown as proprietor. The petitioner asserted he is an electrician and was allegedly paid a nominal amount by Anupam Singla. He further submitted that similarly placed co-accused in other FIRs, where Anupam Singla had floated fictitious firms, have been granted bail by this Court and the Court of Session. The petitioner has been in custody for over six months, investigation is complete, and challan has been presented. Respondent's arguments: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner was an active participant in the fraudulent transactions.