Haryadwinder Singh Bajwa vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Haryadwinder Singh Bajwa, a retired Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, 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. Investigations, including phone tapping, implicated GST officials, traders, and transporters. Allegations included the payment of monthly bribes to GST officials, inter-state and intra-state purchases conducted without accounting or tax payment, and the fraudulent availing of input tax credits. The petitioner had been in custody since April 2021, and the challan had been presented.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the allegations of economic offences and tax evasion, noting that such cases often involve complex schemes. However, it observed that despite the sophisticated nature of GST compliance, including online invoices and e-way bills, no sanction for prosecution had been received against the departmental officials. The Court found no reason to distinguish the petitioner's situation from that of other individuals who had been granted regular bail. Considering the petitioner's custody period and the completion of the investigation concerning him, the Court allowed the petition, 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 is entitled to regular bail in light of his custody period and the completion of investigation, considering the allegations of economic offences and tax evasion under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and IPC? The petitioner argued that he had been in custody since April 2021, the investigation was complete, and the challan had been presented. He contended that individuals with similar allegations, who had been in custody for approximately four months, had been granted regular bail by the Court. Furthermore, he highlighted that when bail was granted to departmental officials, the Court had noted the absence of prosecution sanction. The State, while opposing the bail, conceded that no sanction for prosecution had been received for departmental officials. The State also acknowledged that bail orders granted to similarly situated persons in other FIRs had not been challenged. However, the State asserted that there was additional evidence against the petitioner beyond the disclosure statement and call recordings.