Inderjit Singh Alias Inder Aulakh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, Inderjit Singh @ Inder Aulakh and Yadwinder Singh, sought regular bail in FIR No. 8 dated 21.8.2020, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and IPC sections related to cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The FIR stemmed from information regarding large-scale Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion in Punjab. The investigation involved tapping phones of co-accused, leading to the nomination of GST officials, traders, transporters, and individuals like the petitioners. Allegations include monthly bribes to GST officials, conducting transactions without accounting for them or paying due tax, and availing bogus input tax credits. The petitioners have been in custody since April 2021, and the challan has been presented.

Held

The Court allowed the petitions for regular bail. The primary reasoning was based on the parity of the petitioners with individuals, including departmental officials, who had previously been granted bail by the High Court. The Court noted that the investigation concerning the petitioners was complete and they had been in custody since April 2021. A significant factor influencing the decision was the State's fair submission that no sanction for prosecution had been received against the departmental officials, a point that was previously considered by the Court when granting bail to similar individuals. The Court found no argument from the State disputing the parity claimed by the petitioners. The operative direction was to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. The Court clarified 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 their period of custody and the completion of investigation? 2. Whether the parity with co-accused, including departmental officials, who were granted bail, supports the petitioners' claim for bail, especially in light of the absence of sanction for prosecution against departmental officials? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners, in custody since April 2021, have undergone investigation, and the challan has been presented. They were named in a disclosure statement. They contend that individuals with similar allegations, including departmental officials, have been granted bail by this Court. They specifically highlight that when granting bail to departmental officials, the Court noted the absence of sanction for prosecution, a fact that also applies to their case. The petitioners argue for parity with these previously bailed individuals. Revenue/State's arguments: The State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, it fairly conceded that no sanction for prosecution has been received against the departmental officials to date. The State did not dispute the parity claimed by the petitioners with those granted regular bail in various FIRs.