Harmeet Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that the argument regarding the admissibility of the register maintained by the Munshi (for Harmeet Singh) is not sustainable at the present stage of investigation. The register is being relied upon by the State to ascertain the petitioner's culpability in aiding GST evasion. Regarding the non-compliance with Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court referred to the judgment in Devender Kumar vs. CBI, which held that prior approval is not necessary when the act of a public servant is ex facie criminal or constitutes an offense, and Section 17A applies to offenses relatable to recommendations or decisions. In this case, there was no recommendation or decision on record by a public servant in the discharge of official functions. Therefore, prior approval was not necessary. The Court found that custodial interrogation would be required to unearth the nexus between the petitioners, intermediaries, and the extent of tax evasion. Given the allegations of large-scale tax evasion and monthly bribe payments, and the nascent stage of investigation, the Court deviated from the normal rule of bail, stating that the petitioners are persons of influence who could scuttle the investigation. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to grant anticipatory bail.

Facts

Two criminal miscellaneous petitions (CRM-M No. 37721 of 2020 and CRM-M No. 41913 of 2020) were filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail. These petitions arose from an FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 7, 7(A), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The FIR was based on information that Som Nath, owner of Sadhu Transport, was evading tax in connivance with Excise and Taxation Department officials. Allegations included facilitating tax evasion by ensuring no checking of goods and transporting them through escape routes, with monthly bribes paid to officials. The investigation involved surveillance of mobile numbers, leading to the registration of the FIR against the petitioners and others. The petitioners' applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed by the lower court, prompting these High Court petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the alleged entries in a register maintained by an accused, detailing amounts paid to officials, can be relied upon to implicate the petitioner (Harmeet Singh) in the FIR, considering the arguments regarding its admissibility under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act and the lack of proof of regular maintenance in the course of business. 2. Whether the investigation and registration of the FIR are vitiated by non-compliance with Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, which requires prior approval for inquiries or investigations against public servants concerning recommendations or decisions made in discharge of official functions. 3. Whether the petitioners (Harmeet Singh and Tarlok Chand) are entitled to anticipatory bail, considering the allegations of large-scale tax evasion, bribe payments, the need for custodial interrogation to unearth the nexus and the extent of tax evasion, and the stage of investigation. Petitioner's arguments (Harmeet Singh): The register entries are inadmissible without proof of regular maintenance. There is non-compliance with Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act as no prior permission was obtained. He neither demanded nor accepted illegal gratification, and there is no direct evidence or conversation to that effect. Relied on L.K. Advani Vs. CBI and CBI vs V.C. Shukla for admissibility of entries, and Kailash Chandra Agarwal and Ramesh Chennithala for Section 17A. Petitioner's arguments (Tarlok Chand): Falsely implicated, not named in FIR, no allegation of demand or acceptance of money. Call details were available much earlier, but FIR was registered later. No direct evidence of 'illegal gratification'. Respondent's arguments (State of Punjab): Both petitioners rightly nominated as accused. A similar bail application of other Excise and Taxation Officers was dismissed. While not specifically named in FIR, their names were disclosed by other ETOs. Call details show 14 calls between Pawan Kumar (intermediary) and Tarlok Chand. Harmeet Singh's name is in the register of Shiv Kumar, showing receipt of Rs. 7,67,000/-.