Mohit Arora vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Mohit Arora. The Court acknowledged the facts and circumstances of the case but explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The reasoning for granting bail was primarily based on the petitioner's contention that he was not directly involved in the removal of the vehicle and that his implication was due to his ownership. The fact that the vehicle had been recovered and the petitioner's willingness to join the investigation also weighed in his favour. The Court directed that upon arrest, the petitioner would be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He was also directed to join the investigation as and when required and comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The State was granted liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail if the petitioner failed to cooperate in the investigation.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohit Arora, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC, with subsequent additions of Sections 109, 206, 407, 420, and 457 IPC. The FIR stemmed from an incident where a commercial vehicle, owned by the petitioner's firm M/s Raftaar Cargo Solutions, was detained by the ETO under the GST Act on suspicion of tax evasion. The vehicle was allegedly unlawfully taken away from the department's custody by an unknown person in collusion with the petitioner. The vehicle was later apprehended, and the driver disclosed that it was removed by one Farid, who was also arrested. The petitioner claims he is not involved in taking the vehicle and is being implicated solely due to ownership. The investigation is nearing completion, with a challan presented against a co-accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the FIR registered for offences including theft and criminal conspiracy, considering his alleged involvement in the unlawful removal of a vehicle detained under the GST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was not involved in the act of taking away the vehicle from the Tax Department. He contended that the vehicle was allegedly removed by Farid, and the petitioner is being implicated only because he is the owner of the vehicle. He further stated that the vehicle has been recovered, and he is prepared to join the investigation. Respondent's Contention: The State of Punjab, through its status report, indicated that the petitioner's arrest was being sought based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Om Prakash. The State did not explicitly argue against the grant of anticipatory bail but presented the facts of the investigation.