Shubham Tekriwal vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Shubham Tekriwal, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 127 dated 19.10.2020, registered at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, under Section 420 IPC, with Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC added later. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was merely a consigner of paddy, which was to be delivered to M/s Devki Nandan Agro Food, and referred to a GST bill (Annexure P-5) to establish the firm's genuineness. The State, through its counsel, submitted a status report based on an affidavit from the DSP, Sub Division Patti, District Tarn Taran, indicating that the petitioner was declared innocent. The Court had previously granted interim bail to the petitioner on 22.12.2020.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the investigating agency's finding that the petitioner was innocent. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that he was merely a consigner and the firm was genuine, supported by a GST bill. The interim bail previously granted was made absolute, subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of the allegations and the subsequent finding of innocence by the investigating agency? (Question of law and fact). The petitioner argued that he was only a consigner and the firm involved was genuine, as evidenced by the GST bill. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the High Court in a similar case. The State, based on the investigation report, contended that the petitioner had been found to be innocent.