Facts of the Case

The petitions were filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 8 dated 21.08.2020 registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, relating to an alleged GST tax evasion scam. The FIR invoked offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code concerning cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy.

The petitioners contended that they were similarly placed to a co-accused, Mangal Sain Goyal, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRM-M-25903 of 2021. The prosecution opposed the petitions but was unable to distinguish the petitioners' case from that of the co-accused. The petitioners further undertook to surrender their passports, if any, to address the apprehension of the State that they might leave the country.

 

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.
  3. Whether apprehension regarding the petitioners leaving India was sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

 

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners claimed complete parity with co-accused Mangal Sain Goyal, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.
  • The prosecution had not produced any distinguishing material against them warranting different treatment.
  • They expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
  • They voluntarily agreed to surrender their passports, if possessed, to eliminate any apprehension regarding absconding or leaving the country.
  • They undertook to join the investigation whenever required by the Investigating Officer.

 

Respondent's Arguments

The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the following grounds:

  • The allegations pertained to a serious GST tax evasion scam involving public officials, transporters and dealers.
  • Considering the seriousness of the allegations, there was an apprehension that the petitioners might leave the country.

However, the State was unable to distinguish the petitioners' case from that of the co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail.

 

Court Findings / Order

The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that:

  • The petitioners stood on the same footing as the co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail.
  • The State failed to demonstrate any distinguishing circumstance that justified denial of similar protection.
  • Since the petitioners voluntarily agreed to surrender their passports and cooperate with the investigation, the apprehension regarding their leaving the country could adequately be addressed.

Accordingly, the Court:

  • Granted anticipatory bail to all the petitioners.
  • Directed them to join the investigation within one week.
  • Directed them to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called.
  • Directed them to furnish adequate bail bonds.
  • Directed them to comply with all conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
  • Directed them to deposit their passports, if possessed.
  • Clarified that in case of non-cooperation or any change in circumstances, the State would be free to seek appropriate legal remedies.

The petitions were accordingly allowed.

 

Important Clarifications

  • The principle of parity is an important consideration while deciding anticipatory bail.
  • Mere seriousness of allegations is not by itself sufficient to deny anticipatory bail where similarly placed co-accused have already been granted such relief.
  • Conditions like surrender of passport and cooperation with investigation can adequately safeguard the interests of investigation.
  • The State retains liberty to seek cancellation or modification of bail if the accused fail to cooperate or circumstances materially change.

Sections Involved

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Section 438 – Anticipatory Bail
  • Section 438(2) – Conditions for Grant of Anticipatory Bail

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

  • Section 7
  • Section 7A
  • Section 8

Indian Penal Code, 1860

  • Section 420
  • Section 465
  • Section 467
  • Section 468
  • Section 471
  • Section 201
  • Section 120-B

 

 Link to Download the Order-https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783930720_187compressed.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