Om Parkash vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the case is triable by a Magistrate, the challan has already been filed, and the trial may take time to conclude. Additionally, it was observed that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found these factors sufficient to admit the petitioner to bail. The petitioner is to be released on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Facts

The petitioner, Om Parkash, is seeking regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 379 and 120-B IPC, with subsequent additions of Sections 109, 206, 407, 420, and 457 IPC. The FIR was registered on April 21, 2023. The allegations stem from the detention of a commercial vehicle, registered to the petitioner's firm, M/s Raftaar Cargo Solutions, by an ETO under the GST Act on suspicion of tax evasion. The vehicle was taken to the Mobile Wing office. It is alleged that on April 20, 2023, an unknown person, in collusion with the petitioner, unlawfully removed the vehicle from departmental custody. The petitioner was apprehended on April 21, 2023, driving the vehicle and allegedly disclosed that it was removed by one Farid. Farid was also arrested. The vehicle was recovered, and the material within it was also recovered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the facts and circumstances of the case? The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is not involved in the act of taking away the vehicle from the Tax Department; it was Farid who allegedly removed it, and the petitioner is implicated solely because he was the driver. The counsel further contended that the vehicle has been recovered by the police, and the material therein has also been recovered. It was also stated that the challan has been filed after the completion of the investigation, and the petitioner has been in custody for approximately three months, with the trial likely to take time to conclude. The State counsel opposed the bail petition.