Parveer Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Parveer Singh, sought regular bail in FIR No. 102 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The FIR was filed by M/s Invent Info Solutions alleging that the accused persons placed an order for hardware items worth Rs. 60,88,150/-, delivered them, but only paid Rs. 19 lacs and issued dishonoured cheques from a firm named M/s Naya Jewels. Investigations revealed that the accused allegedly sold laptops purchased from the complainant using GST bills of a fake company, M/s Fresh Grow, which was registered for dealing in rice, pulses, spices, and vegetables. The petitioner was arrested on 18.01.2023 after the disclosure statement of co-accused Deepak Chanana. The charge sheet has been presented against the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the veracity of the prosecution case would be adjudicated during the trial. It found no serious apprehension expressed by the State regarding the petitioner absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 20.01.2023, and none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner was not warranted. The Court relied on its previous decision in Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab, which stated that in economic offenses, once investigation is complete and the triple test is satisfied, denial of bail should be an exception rather than the rule. The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, requiring him to appear before the police station on the first Monday of every month, and depositing an FDR of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Court explicitly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations, even if taken as true, constitute a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail? (Relates to Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail given his period of custody, the non-examination of prosecution witnesses, and the grant of bail to a co-accused? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the case, at best, amounts to a civil dispute, and therefore, no criminal liability should be affixed upon him. He argued for bail based on his custody since 20.01.2023, the fact that none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and that a co-accused, Virendra Rai, had been granted similar bail. State's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner and co-accused had cheated the complainant of Rs. 1,06,00,000/-, indicating the serious nature of the allegations, which disentitled the petitioner to bail. However, the State conceded that the petitioner was in custody since 20.01.2023, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and a co-accused had been granted bail.