Manoj Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the petitioner's submission that he was in custody for over 8 months. It also took into account the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and the likelihood that the conclusion of the trial would take considerable time. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. No specific issues were left undecided, as the decision was based on the bail application and the circumstances presented.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 104 dated June 18, 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. The petitioner was employed as an accountant for M/s Tirupati Balaji, a firm allegedly operated by Subhash Chander and Sandeep Kumar. It was alleged that the proprietors created bogus firms, showing fictitious sales without paying GST, and wrongly claimed input tax credit. The petitioner's role was that of an accountant, allegedly receiving an additional Rs. 4,000 per month for his work in the purported bogus firm. He had been in custody for approximately 8 months at the time of the hearing, and no incriminating material was recovered from him. The challan had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, an accountant allegedly working for a firm involved in GST evasion and fraudulent input tax credit claims, is entitled to regular bail, considering his role, the duration of his custody, and the stage of the proceedings? The petitioner argued that he was merely an accountant receiving a fixed monthly sum of Rs. 4,000 for his services in the alleged bogus firm. He contended that there was no material to suggest he derived any benefit beyond this amount and that nothing incriminating was recovered from him post-arrest. He also highlighted his custody period of approximately 8 months and the ongoing nature of the trial. The State, through its counsel, stated that the challan had been filed but charges were yet to be framed. No specific arguments were recorded against the grant of bail beyond this procedural update.