Parveen Kumar Garg And Another vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, Parveen Kumar Garg and another, filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR, registered on August 8, 2022, at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda, invoked Section 420 IPC. The allegations pertained to a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, which the petitioners argued constituted a civil dispute. They also contended that the GST bills involved were genuine and not forged. On September 14, 2022, a Coordinate Bench granted interim bail, directing the petitioners to join the investigation. The petitioners complied with this order and cooperated with the investigating agency. The State counsel, on instructions, did not dispute their cooperation and stated that the petitioners were not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioners' compliance with the interim order, their cooperation with the investigation, and the State's submission that they were not required for further custodial interrogation. The Court noted that the subject matter was alleged to be Rs. 2 lacs and that the GST bills were claimed to be genuine. The interim order granting bail was made absolute, subject to the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The Court also noted that the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the concession was misused. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, but the genuineness of GST bills was a point of contention.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.140 dated 08.08.2022 registered under Section 420 IPC? The petitioners argued that the subject matter of the FIR involved a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, which they characterized as a civil dispute. They further contended that the GST bills related to the transaction were genuine and not forged, suggesting a lack of fraudulent intent necessary for a Section 420 IPC charge. They submitted that they had joined the investigation and cooperated with the authorities as directed by the court. The respondent/State, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation. They further submitted, on instructions, that the petitioners were not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation.