Facts of the Case

The petitioners approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 245 dated 24.05.2022 registered at Police Station City, Bahadurgarh. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Subsequently, Section 201 IPC and Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 were also added.

The petitioners submitted that the investigation relied upon an application submitted by Rajesh and a representation made by Rahul Tanwar, both indicating that the dispute primarily related to the purchase of iron rods and the billing associated with those transactions. It was also submitted that the investigation had been completed and the challan had already been presented before the trial court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail after completion of the investigation.
  2. Whether continued judicial custody was necessary when the challan had already been filed and no further recovery remained.
  3. Whether the pendency of trial justified grant of regular bail in offences involving alleged GST fake billing and cheating.

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners contended that the dispute arose out of transactions concerning the purchase of iron rods and related billing.
  • They submitted that the prosecution had already completed its investigation.
  • The challan had been presented before the competent court and the matter was fixed for framing of charges.
  • No further recovery remained to be effected from the petitioners.
  • Since the trial would take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

Respondent's Arguments

The State did not dispute the factual position regarding completion of investigation and filing of the challan. The State informed the Court that the case had been fixed for framing of charges before the trial court.

Court Order / Findings

The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that:

  • The investigation had been completed.
  • No further recovery was required from the petitioners.
  • The challan had already been presented.
  • The trial was likely to take time before reaching its conclusion.

Considering these circumstances, the Court held that further detention of the petitioners was not justified. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioners were granted regular bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Important Clarification

The High Court granted regular bail based on procedural considerations including completion of investigation, filing of the challan, absence of any pending recovery, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial. The Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations under the IPC or Section 132 of the CGST Act. The observations were confined solely to the issue of grant of bail.

Sections Involved

  • Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
  • Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785390434_2276compressed.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.