Vipul Jindal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging that the police had collected some evidence pointing to the petitioner's complicity, the Court considered the petitioner's custody for over 1.5 years. The Court also noted that several co-accused, including the main accused Rajesh Mittal, had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court observed that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take time, as 22 prosecution witnesses were cited, and none had been examined. The Court found that the petitioner had been in custody since February 2, 2021, while already in custody for the GST Act complaint, and was not involved in any other cases. The Court accepted the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on furnishing bail bonds.

Facts

The petitioner, Vipul Jindal, sought regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and forgery, related to GST evasion. The FIR alleged a racket involving floating bogus firms, engaging in fraudulent transactions with larger firms to facilitate GST evasion, and causing a loss of approximately Rs. 80 crores to the State Exchequer on transactions exceeding Rs. 1325 crores. The petitioner's brother-in-law, Rajesh Mittal, was identified as the kingpin. The petitioner's vehicle was used by the apprehended accused. Investigation revealed that 18 bogus firms, allegedly constituted by the petitioner, issued fake bills to 421 industrial units in Panipat, who then inflated their expenditures and claimed GST credit. The petitioner has been in custody since February 2, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the FIR registered under the Indian Penal Code, considering his prolonged custody and the alleged involvement in a GST evasion scam. 2. Whether the prosecution under the FIR for cheating and forgery constitutes double jeopardy, given that the petitioner is also facing proceedings under Section 132 of the GST Act for the same underlying transaction. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended there was no concrete evidence of his involvement, that he was falsely implicated, and that the case involved double jeopardy as he was already granted bail in a separate GST complaint. He argued that the loss to the exchequer had been made good by the industrial units, who were the real beneficiaries and accused, and that he had been incarcerated for over 1.5 years. He also pointed out that co-accused, including the main accused Rajesh Mittal, had been granted bail. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State argued that the FIR for cheating and forgery was distinct from the GST Act proceedings, thus not constituting double jeopardy. They asserted that investigation revealed the petitioner constituted the 18 bogus firms, evidenced by common email IDs, phone numbers, and bank account operations. The State further claimed the petitioner forged documents for these firms and that fake bills and invoices were recovered from him, indicating his complicity.