Vipin Garg @ Bindu vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the investigation prima facie connected the petitioner to the alleged GST evasion scam, which caused a loss of Rs. 6 crores to the exchequer. The analysis of the allegations and the evidence collected did not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail petition was dismissed. The Court emphasized that any observations made in the judgment were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court should not advert to these comments. The trial was directed to be expedited. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Vipin Garg @ Bindu, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 160, dated 30.04.2019, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonipat, District Sonipat. The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132 of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed to have no criminal antecedents. The State of Haryana opposed the bail application. The investigation indicated the petitioner's alleged involvement in a GST evasion scam, resulting in a loss of Rs. 6 crores to the exchequer. Mobile numbers and other details prima facie connected the petitioner to the alleged offense.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering his alleged involvement in a GST evasion scam causing a loss of Rs. 6 crores to the exchequer? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 132 of the GST Act and principles of bail). Petitioner's contention: Pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. The petitioner also declared no criminal antecedents. Respondent's contention: The State of Haryana opposed the bail application.