Rajinder Bassi And Others vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that while the offence under Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, is punishable with a maximum of 5 years imprisonment and could potentially be considered under the State policy for offences up to 7 years, the gravity of the offence is significantly amplified by the colossal amount of approximately ₹20 crores involved. The Court noted that the allegations of forging bills and documents to cause loss to the State Exchequer might also attract Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the Supreme Court's clarification that the directions for prisoner release were not mandatory and were primarily aimed at decongesting jails to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Given that the Nabha Jail was reported to be decongested, with no reported cases of COVID-19, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the amount involved, the Court found it inappropriate to grant interim bail. The application for interim bail was dismissed. However, the Court directed the Superintendent of Jail to ensure all necessary precautions and safeguards for new inmates, including medical examination and 14-day segregation, to prevent the spread of the epidemic. The dismissal of the interim bail application was clarified not to affect any future application for regular bail on merits.

Facts

The petitioners, Rajinder Bassi and others, sought interim bail citing the COVID-19 pandemic and a State Government policy for prisoner release. They argued that the alleged offence under Section 132 of the GST Act, punishable by a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, falls within the policy's scope for offences punishable up to 7 years. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the substantial amount of approximately ₹20 crores involved, which they contended made the offence grave. The State also submitted that the Supreme Court's directions for prisoner release were not mandatory and that jails were no longer congested, with no reported COVID-19 cases within them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim bail in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the State Government's policy for prisoner release, considering the offence under Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017 and the State's policy). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that their case is covered by the State policy which allows for the release of undertrials charged with offences punishable up to 7 years, as Section 132 of the GST Act carries a maximum sentence of 5 years. They relied on the policy (Annexure P-2) and the prevailing conditions of COVID-19 spread in jails. Respondent's (State of Punjab) contention: The State argued that the enormous amount of ₹20 crores involved makes the offence exceptionally grave. They further contended that the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 did not grant an absolute right to bail and that the high-powered committee's decision was discretionary. The State also submitted that jails are not congested and there are no reported COVID-19 cases, thus negating the petitioners' apprehension.