Netar Singh vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail and confirmed the interim order dated May 20, 2022. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was cooperating with the investigating agency, and his custodial interrogation was not required at that juncture. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to judicial custody. The Court imposed several stringent conditions, including the petitioner's obligation to join the investigation as and when called, not to tamper with evidence, not to leave India without prior permission, not to induce any person related to the investigation, and to provide his contact and personal details. The Court clarified that its observations were only for the bail petition and not an opinion on the merits of the main case, which the trial court would decide independently.

Facts

The petitioner, Netar Singh, a transporter, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in FIR No. 29/2022, registered under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi. The case alleged that the petitioner supplied bill vouchers/GST invoices to the main accused for loading/unloading of grit and sand, which were purportedly used for loading/unloading charges of cement. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner on May 20, 2022. The petitioner joined the investigation and cooperated as per the status report. The investigating agency stated that custodial interrogation was not required at that time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of supplying GST invoices for goods not matching the actual use, which could potentially involve offences under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he had cooperated with the investigation and that his custodial interrogation was not necessary. He relied on the interim protection granted and the investigating agency's statement that he was cooperating. Respondent's (State's) Argument: The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, submitted that while the petitioner had joined the investigation and was cooperating, stringent conditions should be imposed to ensure his continued cooperation. They did not oppose the grant of bail but sought strict conditions.