Rajesh Mittal vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Mittal, sought regular bail in a complaint case registered under Section 132 of the Haryana Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in custody for 02 years and 08 months. The petitioner argued that this period exceeded half of the maximum sentence of five years that could be imposed if convicted. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner being a habitual offender involved in another FIR with similar allegations. The State conceded that the allegations pertained to evading goods and service tax and acknowledged the petitioner's custody period.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of regular bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner having undergone custody for 02 years and 08 months, which is more than half of the maximum sentence of five years. The Court was influenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. The State of Gujarat and another, where similar bail was granted after 25 months of custody for GST evasion. The Court also considered the petitioner's assertion that the wrongful tax credit amount was discharged by the recipient taxpayer, implying no loss to the state exchequer. The ongoing pandemic and the likely delay in trial conclusion were also factors. The petitioner undertook not to obstruct the trial or influence witnesses. The Court directed the trial court to impose appropriate conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence during the trial, without commenting on the merits of the case. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail, considering he has undergone custody for 02 years and 08 months, which is more than half of the maximum sentence of five years, and the trial is ongoing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that having been in custody for over half the maximum possible sentence, he should be granted bail, subject to conditions to ensure his presence during trial. He highlighted that the allegations were yet to be proven. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State argued that the allegations were serious and the petitioner was a habitual offender. However, they conceded the custody period and the nature of the allegations as tax evasion.