Jitender Bhalla Alias Vicky vs. State Of Ut Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Jitender Bhalla alias Vicky, sought bail after his application was declined by the trial court. He was arrested on December 19, 2022, in connection with FIR No. 386 dated December 13, 2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and later 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that one Rajeev Poonga obtained a GST number for a Dental Clinic but conducted scrap dealer transactions worth Rs. 25,04,35,164/-, leading to a tax and interest due of Rs. 5,10,94,466/-. The GST number was obtained in the name of M/s Vinita Enterprises, which was not found at the disclosed address. The petitioner was arrested as a suspect/co-accused three years after the FIR was lodged.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had been in custody for over 7 months, and the challan had been filed, but charges were not yet framed. It was noted that the investigation was complete, and further custodial interrogation was not required. The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were a matter for trial and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take a long time. The Court also observed that the petitioner was being kept in custody on an unfounded suspicion of tampering with evidence, which was unlikely as the evidence had already been seized. The offense was non-violent, and the petitioner was not involved in any other case. Furthermore, a co-accused had already been granted bail. Considering the petitioner's family responsibilities, fixed abode, and clean antecedents, the Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in further preventive custody and that he was unlikely to pose a flight risk. The Court explicitly stated that any observations made were for the limited purpose of the bail hearing and would not influence the trial court's decision on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given his alleged involvement in a serious economic offense and the fact that he was arrested three years after the FIR was registered? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and principles of bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and nothing was to be recovered from him. He argued that bald allegations were made without substantive evidence attributing any role to him, and that a co-accused, Pushp Behl, had been granted bail. He also highlighted his family responsibilities and clean antecedents. Respondent's (State) arguments: The State opposed the bail petition, arguing that the petitioner committed a serious economic offense and might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released.