Praveen Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Praveen Kumar, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 4 dated 06.01.2019, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 132(1)(B)(C) of the HGST Act, 2017. The FIR was lodged by the Excise and Taxation Officer alleging that the petitioner created false companies to extract GST, issued fake bills, and caused a loss of Rs. 10,233,769/- to the department. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was not named, had no specific role, and only registered a firm at the behest of a co-accused, Anupam Singla, who was the actual beneficiary of the tax evasion. The petitioner had been in custody for over 1 year and 11 months, and the challan had been presented.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious allegations of tax evasion and the significant loss caused to the government exchequer. The Court considered the petitioner's argument that he had a limited role, having merely registered a firm at the behest of a co-accused who was the actual beneficiary. The Court noted that the petitioner had undergone a substantial period of custody (over 1 year and 11 months) and that the trial was at an initial stage. Citing Supreme Court precedents in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P., the Court held that the pendency of other criminal cases against an accused, while a factor, cannot be the sole ground for denying bail indefinitely. The Court found that the petitioner had made out a case for bail based on the facts presented. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, and imposing several conditions to ensure his presence in court, prevent tampering with evidence, and monitor his activities, including reporting to the SHO and surrendering his passport.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of creating false companies, issuing fake bills, and causing a loss of Rs. 10,233,769/- to the government exchequer under Section 132(1)(B)(C) of the HGST Act, 2017, and Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he was not specifically named in the FIR, no specific role was assigned to him, and he merely registered a firm (M/s Vishal Industries) at the behest of a co-accused, Anupam Singla. He contended that he was not the beneficiary of the illegally obtained amounts and that his continued custody was unnecessary as the challan had been presented and he had already undergone over 1 year and 11 months of incarceration. Respondent's Contentions: The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner caused a loss of over Rs. 1 crore to the government exchequer, actively participated in the crime, and had several other cases registered against him. However, the State conceded the period of custody undergone by the petitioner.