Shankar Lal Aggarwal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's compliance with the previous directions, including the deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs and joining the investigation. The State's counsel confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was not required for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the interim bail granted to the petitioner was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and to join investigation as and when called upon to do so. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shankar Lal Aggarwal, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1384 dated 11.12.2017, registered under Section 420 IPC and subsequently Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The FIR was registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad. The petitioner was named as an accused based on the statement of the proprietor of M/s Vamani Overseas Pvt. Ltd., who allegedly submitted fake C-Forms amounting to Rs. 9,51,000/-, which facilitated an input tax credit limit of approximately Rs. 93,000/-. A coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 9 lakhs and join the investigation, granting interim bail upon arrest. The petitioner had complied with the deposit and joined the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1384 dated 11.12.2017, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated solely on the statement of another party. He highlighted that he had already deposited Rs. 9 lakhs as directed by a coordinate bench and had joined the investigation. He relied on the fact that his custodial interrogation was not required. Revenue/State's Contentions: The State, through its counsel, stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was not required for custodial interrogation. No specific arguments were recorded against the grant of anticipatory bail beyond the fact of the FIR and the alleged fake C-Forms.