Rakesh Puri vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Puri, filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. The FIR was registered on 08.09.2020 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner is accused of supplying fake documents for firm registration with the intent to claim GST refunds. The petitioner has been in custody for over 2 years, 7 months, and 16 days. The evidence consists of documents already with the investigating agency, and material witnesses have been examined. Most witnesses are official, and the offences are triable by a Magistrate. The State Counsel did not dispute these factual assertions but noted the petitioner's involvement in four other cases. The petitioner's counsel relied on judicial precedents to argue that prior involvement in other cases should not be a ground to deny bail.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered the rival contentions of the parties and the records of the case. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court took into account the period of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, the nature of the evidence against him, and the stage of the trial. The Court relied on the precedents cited by the petitioner, 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another' and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)', which suggest that involvement in other cases cannot be a ground to deny bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the period of incarceration, the nature of evidence, and the stage of the trial, notwithstanding his involvement in other cases? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been in custody for a significant period (over 2 years, 7 months, and 16 days). He contended that the evidence is documentary and already with the prosecution, and material witnesses have been examined. Furthermore, he submitted that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, and the involvement in other cases, as per the precedents 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another' and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)', cannot be a sole ground for denying bail. Respondent's Arguments: The State Counsel did not dispute the factual assertions made by the petitioner's counsel regarding custody period, nature of evidence, and stage of trial. However, the State pointed out that the petitioner has a history of involvement in four other cases.