Ved Parkash Jakhar vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that a coordinate bench had previously dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a co-accused in the same FIR, finding the petitioners to be similarly placed. For Piara Singh and Ved Prakash Jakhar, the Court observed they were specifically named in the FIR. Regarding Yadavindra Singh, the Court found that call details between him and Vijay Kumar, along with available transcripts, indicated his active participation in passing illegal gratification. The Court reasoned that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the nexus between the petitioners, intermediaries, and the full extent of tax evasion. It was held that the allegations and prima facie investigation revealed large-scale tax evasion and monthly bribe payments, and the investigation was at a nascent stage. The Court also considered that the petitioners were persons of influence who could potentially obstruct the investigation. Therefore, a deviation from the normal rule of 'bail rather than jail' was warranted. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioners, Ved Parkash Jakhar, Yadwinder Singh, and Piara Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 8 dated August 21, 2020, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR alleged a large-scale GST evasion scam involving transportation of goods without proper documentation and payment of monthly bribes to Excise and Taxation Department officials. The investigation, initiated based on intercepted calls of one Vijay Kumar, revealed alleged connivance between Vijay Kumar and several Excise and Taxation Officers (ETOs), including the petitioners, in facilitating tax evasion. The petitioners' anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, leading to the present petitions before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of large-scale GST evasion and bribery, and the evidence presented by the prosecution, including call records and disclosure statements? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the evidentiary value of call records and disclosure statements). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioners were falsely implicated based solely on call records of Vijay Kumar, which are insufficient evidence. - There is no direct evidence of the petitioners accepting bribe money. - Piara Singh argued he was not posted in the relevant department (Mobile Wing or GST Branch) and had no duty to check transporters. - Yadwinder Singh and Ved Parkash Jakhar argued they were nominated based on disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible against them. - Ved Parkash Jakhar further contended he was posted in a different jurisdiction (Sri Muktsar Sahib) and not Fazilka as alleged. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: - The FIR pertains to a significant scandal involving substantial loss to the state exchequer due to GST evasion. - Sufficient evidence, including call records and disclosure statements, exists to prosecute the petitioners. - Call records show conversations between Vijay Kumar and Yadavindra Singh, indicating monthly bribe payments. - Yadavindra Singh allegedly opened a bogus firm (Noor Enterprises) to arrange transport without bills in connivance with officials for bribes. - Transcripts of calls between Vijay Kumar and Yadavindra Singh, referring to 'Jakhar', support the allegations. - Piara Singh and Ved Prakash Jakhar were specifically named in the FIR, negating the plea of nomination solely on disclosure statements.