Mustkin @ Mustakim vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Mustkin @ Mustakim, sought regular bail in FIR No. 61 dated 15.02.2023, registered at Police Station Sonipat Sadar, District Sonipat, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, with Section 120-B IPC added later. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging his identity documents and signatures on blank cheques/withdrawal slips were misused by co-accused Sunny and Parveen to open a bank account in his name. This account was allegedly used to deposit funds for a fake firm, SBJ Enterprise, to evade GST. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.01.2024, and the challan has been presented. The Bank Manager's statement and the State's reply indicated the petitioner had no active role, and withdrawals were made by co-accused Sunny.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. It was held that while the petitioner's bank account was allegedly used for GST evasion through a fake firm created by co-accused Sunny and Parveen, the petitioner's role appeared to be limited to being the account holder. The Court noted, based on the Bank Manager's statement and the State's reply, that the petitioner had no active role in the alleged fraud. Furthermore, withdrawal forms signed by the petitioner were reportedly used by co-accused Sunny for withdrawals. The Court considered that the petitioner was arrested on 26.01.2024, had no criminal antecedents, and the challan had been presented. Given the time likely to be taken for trial conclusion, further detention of the petitioner was deemed unnecessary. The petitioner was released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds, undertaking to appear regularly, not leaving the country without permission, and not tampering with evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering his alleged role in opening a bank account used for GST evasion through a fake firm. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended he is innocent, illiterate, and falsely implicated. He argued his identity documents and signatures were misused by co-accused Sunny and Parveen to open the bank account. He claimed to be a victim of the co-accused's misdeeds, as they used his signatures on blank cheques and withdrawal slips to operate the account. The petitioner highlighted that the Bank Manager's statement supported this, and he has been in custody since 26.01.2024 with the challan presented, meaning trial conclusion would be lengthy. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, formed a fake firm, SBJ Enterprise, in the petitioner's name to generate fake bills and grab GST amounts. However, the State admitted, as per the DSP's reply, that GST returns were filed by co-accused Sunny and Parveen, and the petitioner's role was limited to being the account holder, which was operated by the co-accused.