Dheeraj@Dheeru vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Dheeraj alias Dheeru, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 118 dated 02.04.2019, registered at Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.11.2020. The allegations are that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, created fake firms for wrongful gain, causing a loss of approximately Rs. 3,77,245/- to the State Exchequer/Government in GST. The investigation has been concluded. The State opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offence and the petitioner being a habitual offender with six other FIRs on similar allegations, in which he is also in custody. The petitioner's counsel countered that bail has been granted in three of these other FIRs, including one by a coordinate bench of the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. The Court noted that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 05.11.2022. It was observed that the respondent-State had not made out a case that granting bail would hamper the course of a free and fair trial. Furthermore, since the investigation was complete and material witnesses had been examined, and considering that the trial would likely take a significant amount of time, keeping the petitioner behind bars would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court ordered the petitioner's release on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the nature of the alleged offence involving creation of fake firms and causing loss to the GST revenue, and the petitioner's prior criminal antecedents? The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, is in custody since 05.11.2020, the investigation is concluded, and the trial will take considerable time, thus warranting bail. He also highlighted that he has been granted bail in three out of six other FIRs registered on similar allegations, including an order from a coordinate bench of this Court. The respondent-State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, which allegedly caused a loss of Rs. 3,77,245/- to the State Exchequer in GST, and the petitioner's status as a habitual offender with multiple FIRs on similar grounds. However, the State did not dispute that the investigation was complete.