Ishwar Chand vs. State Through Union Territory, Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Ishwar Chand, filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail pending trial. The case, FIR No. 385 dated 13.12.2019, was registered at Police Station Central Sector-17, U.T. Chandigarh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, with Section 201 IPC added later. The petitioner is alleged to have issued fake bills in exchange for a 5% commission on GST refunds claimed by various traders. The petitioner has been in custody since 03.12.2022 and contends he is not involved in the crime and has not directly benefited from the transactions. The prosecution alleges the petitioner is part of a group of fraudsters who obtained significant GST refunds fraudulently and that he is involved in another similar case.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for bail pending trial. While acknowledging the prosecution's allegations that the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime as part of a group of fraudsters who obtained significant GST refunds through fake bills, the Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 03.12.2022 and that it was not disputed that he was not required for further investigation. Based on these considerations, and without expressing any further opinion on the merits, the Court granted bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of issuing fake bills for GST refunds and his period of custody. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the case is fabricated and the petitioner is not involved. They highlighted that the petitioner is not alleged to have received any direct benefit from the GST department or any government department. It was also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.12.2022 and is not required for further investigation. Respondent's arguments: The counsel for the UT, Chandigarh, argued that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime as part of a group of fraudsters who obtained substantial GST refunds. They also mentioned that the petitioner is involved in another case of a similar nature. However, they did not dispute the petitioner's period of custody or the fact that he is not required for further investigation.