Avtar Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

Seven petitions were filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 8 dated 21.8.2020, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The FIR stemmed from information regarding large-scale evasion of Goods & Services Tax (GST) in Punjab. Allegations included officials of the GST Department, traders, and transporters conniving to conduct transactions without accounting for them or paying due tax, thereby availing bogus input tax credits. The petitioners, alleged to be 'passers', were arrested between August 2, 2022, and September 13, 2022.

Held

The Court allowed the petitions for regular bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the investigation concerning the petitioners was complete and the challan had been presented. Furthermore, the Court noted that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take time, especially since the sanction to prosecute co-accused officials was still awaited. The Court also took into account that co-accused had previously been granted bail by this court. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioners were granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Any pending applications were rendered infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 8 dated 21.8.2020, considering their period of custody and the stage of investigation and trial, particularly in light of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that their investigation was complete, the challan had been presented, and they were named by co-accused during interrogation. They further argued that the trial was unlikely to progress as sanction to prosecute officials of the Excise and Taxation Department had not yet been granted. They also pointed out that co-accused had been granted bail by this court. Revenue's arguments: The State of Punjab, through the Additional Advocate General, opposed the prayer for bail. However, the State fairly submitted that the investigation concerning the petitioners was complete and the challan had been presented. The State also did not dispute that sanction to prosecute department officials was awaited.