Subhash Chand vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the serious nature of the offences, particularly the obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their duties and resistance to government enforcement agencies. The Court noted that such acts are often motivated by avoiding detection of tax evasion and fraudulent transactions and must be dealt with sternly. While acknowledging that co-accused had been granted regular bail, the Court distinguished the petitioner's case, stating that the co-accused had undergone custodial interrogation. The Court found that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for a thorough investigation, to discover the identity of other involved persons, and for the recovery of documents. Furthermore, the Court considered the possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence if granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Subhash Chand, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 03 dated 03.01.2020, registered under Sections 147, 149, 186, 332, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was based on a complaint by a Senior Intelligence Officer of the DGGI, alleging that on 03.01.2020, GST teams arrived at M/s Tarun Chemical and M/s Radhe Enterprises for search and inquiry based on a warrant. The petitioner allegedly arrived, identified himself, and called his son, Ankur. Ankur subsequently arrived, did not disclose ownership details, prevented the search, and called 8-10 persons who allegedly assaulted the GST officers, tore documents, and obstructed their duties. The petitioner apprehended arrest and sought anticipatory bail, while the State opposed it, arguing he was the main conspirator.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties and causing hurt, considering the nature and gravity of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is not the owner of the firms, merely called his son, and no specific allegations were made against him. He also pointed out that co-accused Ankur and Amar Pal were granted regular bail, no recovery was to be made from him, and custodial interrogation was not required as the offences were punishable with imprisonment of less than three years. He relied on the fact that GST teams did not seek police help or take action after the incident. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner was the main conspirator, having called his son who then summoned others to assault the GST team members and prevent the raid. They asserted that custodial interrogation was necessary to identify other involved persons and recover documents, and that resistance to enforcement agencies is a serious matter affecting national economy and the functioning of government agencies.