Sachin Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

These seven petitions were filed seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR stemmed from information regarding large-scale evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Punjab. The case alleged that officials of the GST Department, traders, transporters, and others connived to conduct transactions without accounting for them or paying due tax, thereby availing bogus input tax credits. The petitioners were arrested between August 2, 2022, and September 13, 2022. The investigation concerning the petitioners was complete, and a challan had been presented.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the investigation concerning the petitioners was complete, and a challan had been presented. Crucially, 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. This delay, coupled with the fact that co-accused had previously been granted bail by the High Court, weighed in favor of granting bail to the petitioners. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to grant bail to the petitioners subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 8 dated 21.8.2020, registered under Sections 7, 7(a), 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, considering their period of custody and the stage of investigation and trial? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that their custody period warranted bail, that the investigation was complete, and the challan had been presented. 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 the High Court. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposed the prayer for bail but 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 officials of the department was awaited.