Sonu vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Sonu, in FIR No.44 dated 06.03.2019. The Court considered the petitioner's submission that he is a first offender and has been in custody for approximately 9 months and 21 days. It also took note of the fact that the main accused, Anupam Singla, is the mastermind of the entire racket involving the creation of fake firms and substantial ITC claims. Crucially, the Court observed that similarly situated individuals, who were also arrested in different FIRs and were allegedly trapped by Anupam Singla, have already been released on bail. The Court also noted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found these factors sufficient to grant bail, directing the petitioner's release upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Facts

The petitioner, Sonu, is the proprietor of M/s Vishal Industries, registered under the GST Act, 2017. The FIR alleges that during September 2018 to December 2018, the firm declared outward business worth Rs. 57,87,41,759/- and claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 2,33,39,614/-, resulting in an alleged revenue loss of Rs. 2,89,37,086/-. The petitioner claims to be a first offender, in custody since December 22, 2020, and a victim of one Anupam Singla, who allegedly floated numerous bogus firms, including the petitioner's, by luring him with promises of high returns. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that other individuals similarly trapped by Anupam Singla have been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No.44 dated 06.03.2019 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar, considering his role and the alleged revenue loss to the State. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is a first offender, has been in custody for a significant period, and is not involved in any other cases. He contended that he is a victim of Anupam Singla, who masterminded the creation of bogus firms and that similarly situated individuals have been granted bail. The petitioner relied on CRM-M-5117-2021, where Mimanshu Singla, also allegedly trapped by Anupam Singla, was granted bail. Respondent's Arguments: The State counsel confirmed the petitioner's custody period and did not dispute that Anupam Singla is the mastermind behind the racket involving fake firms and substantial ITC claims. The State did not present any counter-arguments against the bail plea.