Ashok Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 9 dated 21.8.2020, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The FIR stemmed from information regarding large-scale Goods & Services Tax (GST) evasion in Punjab. The investigation involved tapping phones, leading to the nomination of GST officials, traders, and transporters. The petitioner is the brother of Somnath, owner of M/s Sadhu Transport, who allegedly bribed Excise & Taxation Department officials. Transactions were conducted without accounting for goods or paying due tax, with bogus input tax credits being availed. The petitioner claims false implication, stating he was not an employee or owner of the transport company and that investigation is complete with challan presented.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Ashok Kumar. The Court acknowledged the allegations of economic offences and tax evasion, noting that a different approach is required by the investigating agency in such cases. However, it observed that despite the seriousness of the allegations, sanction to prosecute the involved departmental officials had not been received in most cases. Regarding the petitioner, the Court noted that the investigation was complete and the challan had been presented, with no further recovery to be made from him. Given that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Ashok Kumar, is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 9 dated 21.8.2020, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, considering the allegations of economic offences and GST evasion. The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, is in custody since 26th August 2021, the investigation is complete, and the challan has been presented. He contended there is no evidence against him, as he was neither an employee nor the owner of the transport company. He also highlighted that while granting bail to departmental officials, the Court noted the absence of prosecution sanction. The State opposed the bail, submitting that it is a large-scale scam involving goods transported without paying due tax in collusion with Excise Department officials. However, the State fairly conceded that no sanction for prosecution has been received for departmental officials in some cases. The State also noted that orders granting bail to similarly situated persons in other FIRs have not been challenged.