Vishal Kumar Alias Harsh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Vishal Kumar @ Harsh, is seeking bail in FIR No. 21 dated 04.11.2022, registered at PS Vigilance Bureau, FS-1, Punjab, under Sections 7, 7-A, 8 of the PC Act, 1988 (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The FIR was registered based on secret information that individuals, in connivance with GST officers, were bringing iron scrap with less value bills or fake bills from outside states to supply to iron/steel mills, causing significant loss to the government. Five trucks loaded with scrap were stopped, and their drivers could not provide satisfactory answers. The petitioner's involvement allegedly came to light during the interrogation of the arrested accused, with one driver stating that the petitioner acted as a 'passer' facilitating the delivery of iron scrap without GST payment, in collusion with GST officials. The petitioner has been in custody since 01.11.2023.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to stringent conditions. The Court acknowledged the gravity of economic offences but noted that the investigation was complete and chargesheet filed, making continued custody unnecessary for further investigation. Citing precedents like Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court emphasized that the possibility of influencing investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice can be managed through stringent conditions. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and one surety of Rs. 25,000/-. Crucially, the petitioner must comply with his undertaking to use only one mobile number (linked to Aadhar) and disconnect all others within fifteen days of release. Telecom service providers are directed to deactivate all other prepaid SIM cards issued in the petitioner's name. This condition is to remain in force until the trial concludes. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the gravity of economic offences and the stage of pre-trial incarceration? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice. He has no prior criminal antecedents and is willing to furnish bail bonds with stringent conditions, including restricting himself to one mobile number linked to his Aadhar card and disconnecting all others within fifteen days of release. Reliance is placed on the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention can be unjust, especially when investigation is complete. Respondent's arguments: The State opposes the bail application.