Sandeep Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0170 dated 11.06.2021, registered under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala. The petitioner stated he had joined the investigation as per court orders. He produced a Partnership Deed showing he was not a partner in M/s Golden Food Products and had no dealings with Goyal Agro Food, in whose name a bill was issued. The bills pertained to M/s Pat Ram Raj Kumar. The State counsel contended that a bogus firm was created by the petitioner and a GST account was in his name. The transaction involved an outstanding amount of Rs. 71,73,655/-, which the petitioner disputed based on the bills.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, making the interim bail absolute. The Court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation as per previous orders. While the State contended that a bogus firm was created and a GST account was in the petitioner's name, the Court observed that these were disputed facts to be dealt with during the trial. The Court also acknowledged that the outstanding amount of Rs. 71,73,655/- was disputed, particularly in view of the bills available with the police. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The petitioner was directed to continue joining the investigation as and when required and to abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of creating a bogus firm and having a GST account in his name, and the disputed outstanding amount of Rs. 71,73,655/-? The petitioner argued that he is not a partner in the firm M/s Golden Food Products and has no business dealings with Goyal Agro Food, as evidenced by the Partnership Deed. He contended that the bills in question pertain to a different firm, M/s Pat Ram Raj Kumar. The petitioner also highlighted his compliance with previous court orders to join the investigation. The State, represented by the State counsel, argued that a bogus firm was created by the petitioner and that a GST account was found to be in his name. They also noted the disputed outstanding amount of Rs. 71,73,655/-.