Puneet Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 22.01.2020. It also noted that the petitioner was not involved in any other cases. Crucially, the Court took into account that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. Additionally, the Court acknowledged the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the progress of trials. Based on these factors, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The issue of guilt or innocence was not decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Puneet Kumar, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 507 dated 18.12.2019, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. The allegations pertained to the registration of a firm and the raising of fictitious bills for GST evasion. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2020, and the challan has been presented. A co-accused, Sandeep Gupta, had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. The State counsel did not dispute the factual position but opposed the bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering his period of custody, the nature of the offences, and the fact that the challan has been presented? 2. Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused warrants the grant of regular bail to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2020 and is no longer required for custodial investigation as the challan has been presented. He contended that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and he is not involved in any other cases. Furthermore, a co-accused, Sandeep Gupta, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. The petitioner also alluded to the ongoing Covid-19 situation impacting trial progress. Respondent's Arguments: The State counsel, on telephonic instructions, did not dispute the factual position presented by the petitioner but opposed the grant of bail.