Facts of the Case

The petitioners, namely Rajiv Dutta, Kunal Verma and Charanjeet Singh Ghataure, filed petitions under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 8 dated 21.08.2020 registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab. The FIR pertained to an alleged large-scale GST tax evasion scam involving officials of the GST Department, transporters, passers and dealers. The petitioners sought relief primarily on the ground that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail in the same matter and their case stood on identical footing.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
  2. Whether the principle of parity with a co-accused already granted anticipatory bail justified extending the same relief to the petitioners.
  3. Whether apprehensions regarding the petitioners leaving the country constituted sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioners contended that their case was identical to that of co-accused Mangal Sain Goyal, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.
  • It was argued that there was no distinguishing material warranting different treatment.
  • To address the State's concern regarding flight risk, the petitioners voluntarily agreed to surrender their passports, if any, before the investigating agency.
  • Accordingly, they sought anticipatory bail on the principle of parity.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail considering the seriousness of allegations relating to the GST tax evasion scam.
  • It was submitted that there was a possibility of the petitioners leaving the country if granted anticipatory bail.
  • However, the State could not distinguish the petitioners' case from that of the co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail.

 

Court Order / Findings

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed all the petitions and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The Court observed that:

  • The petitioners' case was substantially similar to that of the co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail.
  • Since the State failed to distinguish the petitioners' case from that of the co-accused, the principle of parity was applicable.
  • The apprehension of the petitioners fleeing the country was adequately addressed by their undertaking to surrender their passports.
  • The petitioners were directed to join the investigation within one week and thereafter appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required.
  • In the event of arrest, they were directed to be released on furnishing adequate bail bonds.
  • They were also required to comply with all conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and deposit their passports, if possessed.
  • Liberty was granted to the State to seek appropriate remedies in case of non-cooperation or change in circumstances.

 

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that:

  • Parity with a similarly placed co-accused is a significant consideration while deciding anticipatory bail applications.
  • Mere apprehension that an accused may leave the country cannot by itself justify refusal of anticipatory bail where adequate safeguards such as surrender of passports are imposed.
  • The order granting anticipatory bail does not amount to an expression on the merits of the criminal case, and the investigation shall continue in accordance with law.

 

Sections Involved

  • Section 438 & 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Anticipatory Bail.
  • Sections 7, 7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).


Link to download the order -

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782970808_180compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.