Ashish Gupta And Anr vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioners. The decision was based on the completion of the investigation, the presentation of the challan, the absence of any requirement for further recovery, and the anticipated delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Court found these factors sufficient to warrant the grant of bail. The reasoning hinges on the principle that prolonged incarceration is not warranted when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to be protracted, especially in cases where the dispute appears to stem from billing issues. The operative direction was to allow the petition and grant bail upon furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Ashish Gupta and another, filed a petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 245, dated 24.05.2022, registered at Police Station City, Bahadurgarh. The FIR was initially under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, with Section 201 IPC and Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, added later. The petitioners' counsel argued that the investigation agency relied on an application signed by Rajesh son of Jagdish Sharma and a representation by Rahul Tanwar, indicating a dispute related to the purchase of iron rods and billing. The challan has been presented, and the case is fixed for framing of charges. The State counsel did not controvert the presentation of the challan and confirmed the case is scheduled for charge framing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 245, dated 24.05.2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 201 IPC, and Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, considering the stage of the proceedings and the nature of the allegations? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the investigation is complete, no recovery is to be made, the challan has been presented, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time. They relied on the fact that the dispute appears to be related to billing for iron rod purchases, as indicated by the documents relied upon by the investigation agency. Respondent's Contention: The State counsel confirmed the factual aspect of the challan's presentation and the upcoming charge framing date. No specific arguments against bail were recorded beyond this confirmation.