Sant Kumar And Another vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. While acknowledging that economic offences constitute a separate class, the Court emphasized the integration of the right to liberty with the need for effective interrogation. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, even in economic offences. The gravity of the offence must be assessed on a case-to-case basis, considering the facts and circumstances, and not solely on the nature of the charge. The Court noted that the petitioners had already suffered incarceration for a significant period (over one and a half years) and that the investigation had concluded with the presentation of the challan. The Court found that the petitioners deserved the concession of regular bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, and ordered their release upon furnishing bail/surety bonds. The Court explicitly stated that nothing recorded should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioners, Sant Kumar and another, filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. They were implicated in FIR No. 0014 dated 10.01.2019, registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC. The allegations involved floating bogus/fake firms in the name of Dalbir Singh to fraudulently claim Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, that Dalbir Singh was misused, and that they were not booked under the GST Act, which would have made the offence bailable. They also argued that the forgery charges would be debatable as Dalbir Singh did not deny his signatures. The petitioners had been in custody since 19.04.2021, and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been presented. The prosecution stated that out of 33 cited witnesses, 23 had been examined.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in light of the alleged economic offences involving fraudulent ITC claims, considering their period of incarceration and the stage of investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of bail jurisprudence and the specific facts of the case). Petitioner's Arguments: - They have been falsely implicated. - Dalbir Singh was misused to create firms for claiming ITC. - They have not been booked under the GST Act, where the offence would be bailable given the amount involved. - The forgery charges (Sections 467 and 468 IPC) are debatable as Dalbir Singh admits his signatures. - They have been in custody for over one and a half years, and the investigation is complete with the challan presented. - Evidence is documentary and in possession of the prosecution, negating the risk of tampering. - They have been granted bail in two other similar cases. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: - There are serious allegations involving economic offences. - The petitioners created a network of fake firms to procure ITC fraudulently. - Therefore, they are not entitled to regular bail.