Facts of the Case
The petitioners, namely Rajinder Singh @ Lovely, Avtar
Singh, Pawan Kumar Sharma @ Kala Pandit, Sachin Kumar, Randhir Singh, Balwinder
Singh, and Ajay Kumar, filed separate petitions seeking regular bail in
connection with FIR No. 8 dated 21.08.2020 registered by the Vigilance
Bureau, Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
The FIR alleged a large-scale Goods and Services Tax
(GST) evasion racket operating in the State of Punjab. Based on
intelligence inputs and legally intercepted mobile phone conversations, the
investigating agency alleged that officials of the GST Department, traders,
transporters, and intermediaries were involved in a conspiracy to facilitate
tax evasion.
It was alleged that monthly bribes were paid to GST
officials, enabling inter-State and intra-State transactions without proper
accounting or payment of tax, thereby allowing fraudulent availment of bogus
Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Issues Involved
- Whether
the petitioners were entitled to regular bail after completion of
investigation.
- Whether
prolonged custody was justified when the challan had already been filed.
- Whether
delay in prosecution due to pending sanction against public officials
justified grant of bail.
- Whether
parity with co-accused already granted bail should be extended to the petitioners.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
petitioners had remained in judicial custody for a considerable period.
- Investigation
against them had already been completed and the challan had been presented
before the trial court.
- Their
implication was primarily based upon statements of co-accused recorded
during investigation.
- The
trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future since prosecution
sanction against GST Department officials had not yet been granted.
- Several
co-accused had already been granted regular bail by the High Court, and
therefore the petitioners were entitled to similar relief on the principle
of parity.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the grant of regular bail considering the
seriousness of the allegations involving corruption, GST evasion, and
fraudulent Input Tax Credit.
However, the State fairly acknowledged that:
- Investigation
against the petitioners had been completed.
- The
challan had already been filed.
- Sanction
for prosecution of the concerned departmental officials was still awaited.
Court Order / Findings
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that:
- Investigation
against the petitioners stood completed.
- The
charge-sheet had already been filed.
- Trial
was likely to take considerable time because prosecution sanction against
departmental officials was still pending.
- Co-accused
involved in the same case had already been granted bail.
Considering these factors, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court held that continued
incarceration was not justified.
Accordingly, all the petitioners were granted regular
bail, subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds before the concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Important Clarification
The High Court specifically clarified that:
- The
observations made while granting bail were only for deciding the bail
petitions.
- The
findings shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the
criminal case.
- The
trial court shall independently decide the matter based on the evidence
produced during trial.
Sections Involved
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section
7 – Public servant taking undue advantage
- Section
7A – Taking undue advantage to influence a public servant
- Section
8 – Bribery of a public servant
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section
420 – Cheating
- Section
465 – Punishment for forgery
- Section
467 – Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
- Section
468 – Forgery for the purpose of cheating
- Section
471 – Using forged document as genuine
- Section
201 – Causing disappearance of evidence
- Section
120-B – Criminal conspiracy
Link to download the order -
https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782970953_181compressed.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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment