Yashpal S/O Shri Sohan Lal vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The reasoning was based on the applicant having joined the investigation on June 3, 2022, which was apparent from the report. While not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail. The operative directions were that in the event of the applicant's arrest, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. The conditions for bail included making himself available for interrogation as and when required, not inducing, threatening, or promising any person to dissuade them from disclosing facts, and not leaving India without prior court permission. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Yashpal, filed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 31/2022, registered at Police Station Khushkhera, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, for alleged offences under Sections 420, 408, and 381 of the IPC. Previously, a coordinate bench had granted the applicant immunity from coercive action, subject to joining the investigation by June 20, 2022. The applicant had initially filed an FIR on December 10, 2021, alleging GST evasion by his company and senior employees. Subsequently, a counter-FIR was filed on March 4, 2022, leading to the present action against the applicant. The applicant joined the investigation on June 3, 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 31/2022, considering the prior grant of immunity and his subsequent joining of the investigation. Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued that he had been granted immunity from coercive action by a coordinate bench, provided he joined the investigation. He contended that he had complied with this condition by joining the investigation on June 3, 2022. He also highlighted that he was the one who initially filed an FIR alleging GST evasion by his company and its management, suggesting a potential retaliatory counter-FIR against him. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application.