Prem Raj Meena vs. State Of Haryana
Facts
The petitioner, Prem Raj Meena, an alleged GST official, is accused of demanding a bribe from a handloom businessman, Dinesh. The complainant alleged that Prem Raj Meena and other GST officials visited his factory, checked bills for 2022-23 and 2023-24, and claimed GST was charged at a lesser rate than prescribed, threatening a penalty of Rs. 70 lacs to Rs. 1 crore. The complainant was directed to contact Pankaj Khurana, a Chartered Accountant, to resolve the matter. It is alleged that Prem Raj Meena and Pankaj Khurana conspired to demand a bribe of Rs. 12,00,000/- to impose a penalty of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The complainant alleged paying Rs. 3,00,000/- on February 6, 2024, and Rs. 5,00,000/- on February 9, 2024, as bribe money and GST. The FIR was registered under Sections 120-B, 384 IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the PC Act.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted interim bail on April 26, 2024, which was continuing until the date of the decision. The petitioner had complied with the conditions of the interim bail by submitting affidavits. The State counsel did not oppose the petitioner's request for bail and filed a status report. The Court considered the period of pre-trial incarceration, which was stated to be more than two months, and found no justification for further detention. Consequently, the interim order granting bail was made absolute, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC given the allegations of demanding and accepting bribes in connection with GST assessment and the period of pre-trial incarceration. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has complied with the conditions of the interim bail granted on April 26, 2024, and has handed over affidavits to the State counsel. The counsel highlighted the petitioner's period of pre-trial incarceration, which exceeded two months, suggesting it was sufficient justification for granting regular bail. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Argument: The State counsel did not refute the petitioner's stand and filed a status report which was taken on record. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State counsel against the grant of bail beyond filing the status report.
Sections Cited
Section 439 CrPC, Sections 120-B, 384 IPC, Sections 7, 7A, 13(1)(b), 13(2) PC Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.05.2024 Prem Raj Meena ...Pe oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Dr. Anmol Ra4an Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate for the pe oner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons 06 09.02.2024 ACB Karnal, District An
Corrup on Bureau, Haryana 120-B, 384 IPC, 7, 7-A of PC (Sec on 13(1) (b) r/w 13(2) of PC Act added later on)
The pe oner, incarcerated in the FIR cap oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec on 439 CrPC.
Vide order dated 26.04.2024, this Court had granted interim bail to the pe oner which is con nuing ll date.
Counsel for the pe oner submits the pe oner has complied with condi on no.14 of order dated 26.04.2024 and has handed over two sets of affidavits to the State counsel who has handed over the same to the Inves gator.
State counsel does not refute the stand of counsel for the pe oner and has filed status report which is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to counsel
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.