Hitender vs. State Of Haryana
Held
The Court held that the petitioner, Hitender, is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the investigation was complete and the challan had already been presented. Considering the nature of the offences, which included allegations of preparing fake invoices of bogus GST firms, and the petitioner's role as the proprietor of Chaudhary Metals, the Court found no fruitful purpose in keeping the accused behind bars. Furthermore, the conclusion of the trial was anticipated to take time. Therefore, the petition for regular bail was allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Facts
The petitioner, Hitender, sought regular bail in FIR No. 245, registered on 24.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The FIR was later amended to include offences under Section 201 of the IPC and Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner is the proprietor of Chaudhary Metals and is accused of preparing fake invoices for bogus GST firms. The challan (charge sheet) was presented on 04.08.2022, and the case was fixed for framing of charge on 10.10.2022. The State of Haryana was the respondent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, Hitender, is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 245, dated 24.05.2022, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and Section 201 of the IPC and Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that since the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented, and given the nature of the alleged offences and his role confined to being the proprietor of a firm involved in preparing fake invoices, his continued detention would serve no fruitful purpose, especially as the trial is likely to take time. Respondent's argument: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, filed a custody certificate and submitted that the challan had been presented and the case was fixed for framing of charge. No specific argument against bail was recorded.
Sections Cited
Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43863-2022 DECIDED ON: 27.09.2022 HITENDER
.....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana. SANDEEP MOUDGIL
, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition seeking regular bail in FIR No.245, dated 24.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (later on added offence under Section 201 of the IPC and 132 of the GST Act, 2017). Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner namely Hitender son of Nirmal Kumar, which is taken on record and submits that the challan has already been presented on 04.08.2022 and now the case is fixed for framing of charge on 10.10.2022. Since, the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented, looking at the nature of the offences involved and the role of the petitioner i.e., confined to his being a proprietor of the firm namely Chaudhary Metals with the allegations of preparing fake invoices of b
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.