Nitesh vs. State Of Haryana
Held
The Court dismissed the second bail petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the seriousness of the crime committed by the petitioner. The Court noted that no new grounds were presented to entertain the second petition for bail. While the petitioner argued for bail based on the delay in framing charges and the period of custody, the State emphasized the gravity of the alleged fraud involving fake invoices of Rs. 122.78 crores and the petitioner's role as the main accused. The Court's decision was influenced by the heinous nature of the crime, outweighing the arguments for bail based on procedural delays. The ratio decidendi is that the seriousness of the alleged economic offense, particularly involving substantial amounts of fraudulent input tax credit, can be a decisive factor in denying bail, even if charges are yet to be framed and the accused has been in custody for some time.
Facts
The petitioner, Nitesh, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 20 dated 25.01.2019, registered at Police Station Arya Nagar Rohtak, District Rohtak. The FIR was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 132(1) B.C. of the GST Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner committed fraud with the State by preparing fake invoices amounting to Rs. 122.78 crores to claim input tax credit. The petitioner had been in custody since 06.06.2019. This was a second bail application. The trial court had not yet framed charges.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the stage of the trial and the period of custody, in light of Section 132(1) B.C. of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that charges had not yet been framed, and his continued detention would serve no useful purpose as the conclusion of the trial might take a considerable time. He had been in custody since 06.06.2019. Respondent's (State of Haryana) contentions: The State vehemently opposed the bail application, asserting that the petitioner was the main accused and had committed a heinous crime. The delay in the trial was attributed to the pendency of anticipatory bail applications of co-accused before the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1) B.C. of the GST Act, 2017, Section 439 Cr.P.C.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53598-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.02.2020 Nitesh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN *** Present : Ms. Priyanka Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana. *** RAMENDRA JAIN
, J. (Oral)
Through 2nd instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising from FIR No.20 dated 25.01.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 132(1) B.C. Of GST Act, 2017, at Police Station Arya Nagar Rohtak, District Rohtak. According to prosecution, petitioner, claiming input tax credit, caused fraud with the State, preparing fake invoices of Rs.122.78 crores Learned counsel contends that charges have yet not been framed against the petitioner. He is in custody since 06.06.2019. Conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any more in jail. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently MAMTA MALHOTRA 2020.02.18 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of thi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.