Tarun Singla vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Tarun Singla, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.85 dated 31.03.2024, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar, for offences including Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The FIR concerned GST evasion, with iron bars being transported under a bogus firm's name. The petitioner was granted interim bail on 16.05.2024, with a direction to join the investigation. He subsequently joined the investigation and cooperated with the agency. The State counsel confirmed the petitioner's cooperation and stated he was not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation. It was also noted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and no other criminal cases against him.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The interim order dated 16.05.2024 was made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) BNSS. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency, as confirmed by the State counsel. Furthermore, the State counsel, on instructions, stated that the petitioner was not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation and possessed clean antecedents. In light of these submissions, the Court found no impediment to granting the concession of anticipatory bail. The State was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner misused the concession.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.85 dated 31.03.2024, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, considering his cooperation with the investigation and clean antecedents? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he had joined the investigation as directed and cooperated fully with the investigating agency. He further submitted that he was not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation and had clean antecedents. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Contention: The State counsel, on instructions, did not dispute the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation. They further submitted that the petitioner was not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation and had clean antecedents. The State counsel also confirmed that the case involved GST evasion and the transportation of goods in the name of a bogus firm.