Rajiv Dutta vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

These three petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. were filed by Rajiv Dutta, Kunal Verma, and Charanjeet Singh Ghataure seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused in FIR No. 8 dated 21.8.2020, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Punjab F.S.-1, Mohali, under Sections 7, 7(A), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR pertains to a tax evasion scam involving GST officials, transporters, and dealers. The petitioners claimed parity with a co-accused, Mangal Sain Goyal, who had been granted anticipatory bail by the same court on 13.8.2021. The State opposed the grant of bail, citing the nature of allegations and the risk of the petitioners leaving the country.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with the co-accused. The reasoning was that the State counsel could not distinguish the petitioners' situation from that of the co-accused, Mangal Sain Goyal, who had been granted anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the previous order granting bail to the co-accused had emphasized the lack of material beyond a disclosure statement. Considering the entirety of the facts and the parity, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The operative directions included the petitioners joining the investigation within one week, appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when called for, and furnishing adequate bail bonds. They were also directed to deposit their passports, if possessing them. The Court clarified that if the petitioners failed to appear for investigation or if circumstances changed, the State could pursue remedies as per law. The Court also noted that nothing stated in the order should be construed as an observation on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who was granted similar relief? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that they are entitled to anticipatory bail based on parity with co-accused Mangal Sain Goyal, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 13.8.2021. They highlighted that the earlier order granting bail to the co-accused noted that apart from a disclosure statement, there was no other material against him, and it would not be appropriate to deny personal liberty. The petitioners also volunteered to surrender their passports if possessed. Respondent (State of Punjab): Opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail, contending that considering the nature of allegations, there were chances of the petitioners leaving the country. However, the State counsel was not able to distinguish the parity of the petitioners with the co-accused regarding the grant of interim anticipatory bail.