Dheeraj @ Dheeru vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Dheeraj @ Dheeru, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 8 dated 09.01.2019, registered at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involve conspiracy with co-accused to create fake firms, alleged bogus sale of goods amounting to Rs 13 crores, and non-deposit of GST of approximately Rs 65,00,000, causing a significant loss to the government. The petitioner declared several prior FIRs, some involving similar offences, and has been in custody since 08.11.2020.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, subject to stringent conditions. The Court acknowledged the gravity of economic offences and the magnitude of the alleged fraud. However, it noted that the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed, suggesting that the petitioner's custody might not be necessary for further investigation. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi, Sanjay Chandra, and Sushila Aggarwal, the Court emphasized that criminal antecedents alone should not be the sole ground for rejecting bail, and the possibility of influencing investigations or tampering with evidence can be managed through strict conditions. The Court found that the petitioner had made a case for bail, considering the penal provisions invoked, the pre-trial custody period, and the peculiar facts of the case. The Court also referred to its own observations in Mahidul Sheikh regarding flexible bail conditions, allowing the accused to choose between surety bonds or fixed deposits. The Court did not comment on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering his alleged involvement in economic offences involving a substantial amount and his criminal antecedents? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice and prayed for bail with stringent conditions. State's contention: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that given the petitioner's criminal past, he is likely to indulge in crime again if released.