Subhash vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that while it would be a matter of evidence to prove the allegations made in the FIR, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars, especially since he is in government service as a Taxation Inspector and a challan has been presented. Without commenting on the merits or demerits of the case, which are subject to trial, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate/CJM, Gurugram, surrendering his passport, and not leaving the country without the court's permission. The ratio decidendi is that continued incarceration is not warranted when a challan has been filed and the accused is a government servant, pending trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Subhash, a Taxation Inspector from 2013 to 2017 at Gurugram, is seeking bail in FIR No. 115 dated 17.02.2018, registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 204 of the IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations concern his involvement in incorporating a firm that allegedly caused loss to the State Exchequer due to non-payment of GST. The petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2018, and a challan has since been filed. The petitioner's counsel argued that his arrest was based on a disclosure statement of another accused and that it is yet to be determined if he was instrumental in forming the company. The State did not dispute the filing of the challan.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a Taxation Inspector, is entitled to regular bail given his arrest and the filing of a challan in a case involving alleged loss to the State Exchequer due to non-payment of GST, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 204 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been arrested and the challan has been filed. He contended that his arrest was based on the disclosure statement of another accused and that it remains to be seen if he was instrumental in forming the company as alleged. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The respondent, through the Additional Advocate General, submitted that based on the investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner but did not dispute the factum of the filing of the challan.