Ravi Nandan vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Nandan, a retired Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, sought regular bail in FIR No. 8 dated August 21, 2020. The FIR was registered for alleged large-scale Goods & Services Tax (GST) evasion in Punjab, involving officials, traders, and transporters. The petitioner was implicated based on tapped mobile conversations of a co-accused, Vijay Kumar, suggesting payments to department officials. The allegations include conducting inter-state and intra-state purchases without accounting for them or paying due tax, and availing bogus input tax credits in connivance with officials. The petitioner was in custody since July 26, 2021, and the challan (charge sheet) had been presented.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. It acknowledged the allegations of economic offences and tax evasion, noting that such cases require a different approach from the investigating agency due to their planned nature. The Court observed that despite the seriousness of the allegations, the pace of investigation was slow, evidenced by the fact that sanctions to prosecute involved departmental officials had not been received in most cases. The Court found no reason to differentiate the petitioner from other individuals who had been granted regular bail by the High Court. Considering the petitioner's custody period, the completion of the investigation concerning him, and the likelihood of the trial taking time, the Court granted bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds. The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a retired official, is entitled to regular bail given the allegations of economic offences and tax evasion under Sections 7, 7(a), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated, had retired before the FIR's registration, and that the State would require sanction for his prosecution. He highlighted that the arrest of co-accused Vijay Kumar was stayed by the Court and that bail had been granted to other departmental officials without the prosecution sanction being received. Respondent's arguments: The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, opposed the bail prayer but conceded that no sanction for prosecution had been received for departmental officials. The State also noted that orders granting bail to similarly situated persons in other FIRs had not been challenged.