Nitin Goyal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The allegations of cheating the State by claiming input credit through fake invoices, defrauding the State of over Rs. One crore, establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that when allegations involve cheating and a massive amount, custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation, citing Supreme Court judgments in *Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar* and *State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma*. These precedents highlight that custodial interrogation is vital for disinterring concealed information and materials, and anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the applicant is falsely implicated. The Court rejected the parity argument, noting that the co-accused had a lesser alleged share (Rs. Ten lacs) and had already undergone five months of custody, distinguishing it from the petitioner's case. Consequently, the Court found that the nature of allegations necessitates custodial interrogation and the collected evidence does not warrant the grant of bail at this stage. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Nitin Goyal, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. He is apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 160, dated 30.04.2019, registered at Police Station Civil Line Sonipat, District Sonipat, initially under Section 420 IPC, with Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 132 of the GST Act added later. The allegations involve fraud related to GST invoices and claiming input tax credit to the extent of Rs. 1,10,35,701/-. The petitioner claims no criminal antecedents. The State opposed the bail, seeking custodial interrogation to investigate the scam and potential involvement of government officials.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, considering the serious allegations of cheating the State through fake GST invoices and claiming input credit amounting to over Rs. One crore, and the State's need for custodial interrogation to unearth the scam? The petitioner argued that the primary evidence, a confession by Hemraj Ahuja, is inadmissible against him as it is not inculpatory. He further contended that custodial investigation would serve no purpose and pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice. The petitioner also argued for parity with a co-accused granted bail. The State argued that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented and essential for unearthing the scam and ruling out the involvement of government officials. They relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the importance of custodial interrogation in serious offences and the potential for misuse of anticipatory bail. The State also argued that the petitioner is not entitled to bail on parity due to differing allegations and amounts involved compared to the co-accused.