Gaurav Dhir vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Gaurav Dhir, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 140 dated April 15, 2023, registered under Sections 406, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector 40, Gurugram. The petitioner's counsel argued that the current FIR stemmed from disclosures made by a co-accused in a prior case related to GST evasion, in which the petitioner had already been granted regular bail. On August 28, 2023, the Court issued a notice of motion and granted interim bail, directing the petitioner to join the investigation. Today, the State counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for custodial interrogation.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was primarily based on the petitioner's compliance with the interim order dated August 28, 2023, by joining the investigation. The State counsel confirmed that the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the interim order granting bail was made absolute, subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that this was not a "blanket" or indefinite protection from arrest but was confined to the specific FIR and would not extend to any other incidents. The order also clarified that it did not limit the police's right to investigate and that the petitioner would be deemed in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act if discoveries were made based on his information. The Court also reserved the right for the police to seek cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. in case of any violation of the bail conditions. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in FIR No. 140 dated April 15, 2023, registered under Sections 406, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present FIR was a consequence of disclosures made by a co-accused in a separate GST evasion case, where the petitioner had already secured regular bail. This suggests a potential link or continuation of the same alleged offense, and the petitioner's prior bail in a related matter should be considered. Revenue/State's Contention: The State's counsel, on instructions, stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation as per the Court's previous order and was no longer required for custodial interrogation. No specific arguments against the grant of anticipatory bail were recorded.