Sant Kumar And Another vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Sant Kumar and another, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail. The FIR was registered on January 9/10, 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Bhuna, Fatehabad. The allegations pertained to an alleged bogus firm that evaded GST. The petitioners argued that the main accused, in whose name the firm existed, had already been granted bail. They also stated that the challan had been presented and eight witnesses had been examined. The State counsel contended that the petitioners played a key role and were masterminds, with another individual acting as a puppet. However, the State counsel conceded that the challan had been presented and eight witnesses examined.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that a co-accused, Joginder Singh, in whose name the alleged bogus firm that evaded GST existed, had already been granted regular bail. Furthermore, the challan had been presented in the petitioners' case, and the trial was in progress with eight witnesses already examined. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petitioners in jail during the trial, which was expected to take time due to the pandemic's impact on court functioning. The Court also considered the undertaking by the petitioners' counsel that they would not influence the trial or witnesses. The operative direction was to release the petitioners on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the stage of the trial and the bail granted to a co-accused? The petitioners argued that the main accused, in whose name the alleged bogus firm that evaded GST existed, has already been granted bail. They further submitted that the challan has been presented and eight witnesses have been examined, making continued incarceration during the trial unnecessary. They undertook not to influence the trial or witnesses. The State argued that the petitioners were the masterminds behind the operation, with another individual merely acting as a puppet. However, the State conceded that the challan had been presented and eight witnesses had been examined.