Sonu Malhotra vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sonu Malhotra, sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 43 dated 20.02.2023, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (later Sections 120-B and 212 IPC were added) at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. The petitioner's name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Ankit, who allegedly implicated him falsely. The petitioner runs a business, M/s Punjab Electronics, with a GST number. The disclosure statement alleged the petitioner was a Chartered Accountant maintaining investor registers, but a subsequent statement by the same co-accused admitted to burning such records. The petitioner had a prior FIR against him, for which he was on bail. He was directed to join the investigation by 02.08.2023 and was granted interim bail upon arrest, subject to conditions.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, making the interim bail order dated 21.07.2023 absolute. The Court found that the petitioner had joined the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency, as affirmed by the State counsel. The Court also noted that the State counsel submitted that the petitioner was not required for custodial interrogation at that stage. Therefore, in view of the petitioner's cooperation and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation, the Court granted anticipatory bail. The decision was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was directed to continue to join and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required, failing which the State would be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail. No specific GST provisions were discussed or applied in the decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 43 dated 20.02.2023, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (Sections 120-B and 212 IPC added later) at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri? The petitioner argued that his name surfaced based on a false implication by a co-accused due to a prior FIR lodged by the petitioner against that co-accused. He contended that he has no direct involvement in the alleged offense and is running his own business. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the co-accused's statements regarding the destruction of records. The petitioner stated his willingness to join the investigation. The respondent-State, through its counsel, affirmed the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and stated that custodial interrogation was not required at that stage.