Pankaj Khurana vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Khurana, a Chartered Accountant, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC. The FIR alleged that officials from the GST Department, including co-accused Premraj Meena and Nikhil Bansal, visited the complainant's handloom business factory. They allegedly claimed the complainant had deducted GST at a lesser rate than prescribed for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, threatening a penalty of Rs. 70 lacs to Rs. 1 crore. The complainant was directed to speak with the petitioner. The petitioner, after consulting with the GST officials, allegedly informed the complainant that the penalty could be Rs. 11 lacs if a bribe of Rs. 12 lacs was paid. Subsequently, the petitioner and Premraj Meena allegedly obtained Rs. 3 lacs as a bribe and Rs. 5 lacs as GST from the complainant on February 6, 2024. Further demands of Rs. 9 lacs were made. On February 9, 2024, the complainant, under the supervision of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, handed over Rs. 7 lacs in marked currency to the petitioner, who was apprehended with the money. The petitioner disclosed that he took the money at the behest of Premraj Meena. The co-accused, Premraj Meena, was also arrested and a portion of the bribe money was recovered from his car.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission of no prior criminal history and his willingness to abide by stringent conditions. The primary condition imposed was that the petitioner shall use only one mobile number linked to his AADHAR card and all other prepaid SIM cards must be deactivated within fifteen days of release. This condition is to continue until the conclusion of the trial. The Court also directed that telecom service providers must disable all prepaid mobile numbers issued in the petitioner's name, except the primary one linked to AADHAR, until the trial concludes. The Court referenced Supreme Court judgments in Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi regarding the imposition of proportionate and rights-respecting bail conditions. The Court emphasized that any observations made in the bail order were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court should not be influenced by these comments. The bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and thereafter under Section 437-A of the CrPC, unless canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe in collusion with GST officials, and the recovery of tainted money? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 7, 7A, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 384, 120B of the Indian Penal Code). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice. He offered to comply with stringent bail conditions, including restricting himself to a single mobile number linked to his AADHAR card. He has no prior criminal history. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana opposed the bail application, highlighting the serious allegations of corruption and bribery involving GST officials and the petitioner, the recovery of a significant amount of tainted money, and the corroboration of the complainant's statement through a shadow witness and a Section 164 CrPC statement.