Deepak vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 315 dated June 22, 2023, registered at Police Station Jind City, District Jind, under various sections of the IPC, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The FIR alleged the manufacturing and sale of spurious ghee under branded names. A raid led to the recovery of 780 liters of spurious ghee and other related items, with two individuals, Hunny Mittal and Bachan Lal, found packing the product. The owner of the godown, Hunny Mittal, reportedly lacked a license. The petitioner claimed he was not named in the FIR and was being implicated based on a co-accused's disclosure statement and a builty not bearing his signature. The State opposed the bail, presenting disclosure statements implicating the petitioner in the preparation of spurious ghee and arranging wrappers and tetra packs. The State also highlighted a forged GSTIN number found on a bill and the petitioner's Aadhaar card being attached to bills for spurious ghee transportation. Furthermore, the landlady stated the petitioner was present when two shops were rented to Hunny Mittal. The petitioner was also involved in a similar prior case.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the strong evidence presented by the State, which included disclosure statements from co-accused directly implicating the petitioner in the crime of manufacturing and selling spurious ghee. The Court found significant merit in the State's submissions, particularly concerning the forged GSTIN number and the petitioner's Aadhaar card being attached to bills for the transportation of spurious ghee. The landlady's statement further corroborated the petitioner's involvement in the rented premises. The Court concluded that further investigation could not proceed effectively without the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, given his specific emergence as an alleged participant in the criminal activity alongside the co-accused. The Court also noted the petitioner's involvement in a prior case of a similar nature. Therefore, the Court found the case unsuitable for granting anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of his involvement in the manufacturing and sale of spurious ghee, as per the disclosure statements of co-accused and documentary evidence including a forged GSTIN and bills with his Aadhaar card attached. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, his implication was solely based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, and a crucial document (builty) did not bear his signature. He asserted no direct connection to the factory and expressed readiness to join the investigation. The State contended that the disclosure statements of the arrested accused, Hunny Mittal and Bachan Lal, explicitly implicated the petitioner in the conspiracy to manufacture spurious ghee. They further presented evidence of a forged GSTIN number used in bills for the spurious product, the petitioner's Aadhaar card being attached to such bills, and the landlady's statement confirming the petitioner's presence during the rental of premises used for the illegal activity. The State also pointed to the petitioner's involvement in a previous case of a similar nature, arguing that custodial interrogation was necessary for further investigation.