Chirag Sharma vs. The State Through Ps

Facts

The petitioner, Chirag Sharma, filed a criminal petition seeking relaxation of a condition imposed by the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACR Cases at Hyderabad. The condition, imposed in Crl.M.P. No. 430 of 2024 in Crime No. 85 of 2024, directed the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer on every Saturday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for four months or until the filing of a charge sheet, whichever is earlier. The petitioner, residing in Delhi, argued that he had been complying with the condition for three months without any allegations of violation and sought relaxation due to the travel inconvenience. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the relaxation, alleging the petitioner's non-cooperation in the investigation of a grave offense involving evasion of GST amounting to crores of rupees.

Held

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition, holding that it was not a fit case for relaxation of the condition imposed. The Court considered the serious allegations leveled against the petitioner, including the evasion of GST amounting to crores of rupees by misleading companies while claiming to be a chartered accountant. The Court found that the petitioner's appearance before the police was required for the investigation, which was to be conducted throughout the country. Given the gravity of the alleged offense and the need for the petitioner's presence for effective investigation, the Court concluded that relaxation of the condition would not be in the interest of justice. Therefore, the Court upheld the order of the Principal Special Judge and dismissed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed on the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer every Saturday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for four months or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, should be relaxed, considering the petitioner's compliance and travel inconvenience from Delhi? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the discretion of the Court under Section 483(1)(B) of BNSS and principles of justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he had been diligently complying with the imposed condition for the past three months without any violation. He further submitted that due to his residence in Delhi, the weekly appearance before the police in Hyderabad caused significant travel inconvenience, necessitating a relaxation of the condition. Respondent's contention: The State opposed the relaxation, asserting that despite the petitioner's appearance, he was not cooperating with the investigation. The State highlighted the gravity of the alleged offense, involving evasion of GST amounting to crores of rupees by misleading companies, and claimed that the petitioner's presence was crucial for a nationwide investigation. The State relied on the need for the petitioner's presence for the purpose of investigation.