Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Anupam Singla, filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking regular bail in FIR No.13 dated 15.01.2019, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurugram, District Gurugram, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and Section 10 of the GST Act, 2017. The case arises out of an alleged large-scale financial scam involving forged GST inputs causing loss to the exchequer. The petitioner was stated to be involved in 25 other criminal cases besides the present one. Although the offence is triable by the learned JMIC, Gurugram, the trial had progressed substantially, with 27 of the 36 listed witnesses already examined at the time of hearing.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in an FIR alleging a forged GST input tax credit scam involving IPC and GST Act offences.
  2. Whether the petitioner's involvement in numerous other cases and the pending examination of remaining prosecution witnesses warranted continued custody or deferral of bail.
  3. What directions were appropriate to ensure expeditious completion of the trial given that a majority of witnesses had already been examined.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The offence, though serious in allegation, is triable by the learned JMIC, Gurugram, a fact relevant to the nature of custody sought to be continued.
  • Out of 36 listed prosecution witnesses, 27 already stood examined, showing the trial was well advanced and could be concluded without further prolonging the petitioner's custody.
  • If granted three months' time, the prosecution could positively complete examination of the remaining witnesses, and the petitioner's continued incarceration pending that limited exercise was not warranted.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, opposed the relief sought and gave a specific statement resisting bail at this stage.
  • The State committed to make all efforts to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses within three months, addressing the delay concern without releasing the petitioner.
  • The prosecution's position, taken on record, was treated by the Court as a firm commitment binding the trial process going forward.

Court Order/Findings

  • In view of the specific statement made by counsel for the respondent-State, the Court declined to grant the bail sought by the petitioner.
  • The Court directed the respondent-State to make all efforts to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses within three months, and directed the trial Court to make all possible efforts to conclude the trial within that period.
  • Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to re-approach the Court after three months from the next date of hearing if the prosecution evidence could not be completed within that period without any fault of the accused.
  • The petition was disposed of accordingly, without granting the substantive relief of bail.

Important Clarification

  • Where a substantial majority of prosecution witnesses have already been examined, courts hearing bail pleas in economic offence/GST fraud cases may decline bail outright while instead fixing a time-bound schedule for completing the remaining evidence and directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
  • A petitioner is typically granted liberty to renew the bail application if the prosecution fails to complete the remaining evidence within the time fixed, without any fault attributable to the accused — a useful fallback for future applications in similar GST/ITC forgery prosecutions.
  • The order illustrates that allegations of a large-scale forged-ITC scam, combined with pendency of numerous connected cases against the accused, can weigh against grant of bail even at an advanced stage of trial.

Sections Involved

  • Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure — provision under which regular bail was sought.
  • Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, Indian Penal Code — offences of cheating and forgery alleged in the FIR.
  • Section 9, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — provision cited in the FIR alongside the GST Act charge.
  • Section 10, GST Act, 2017 — provision of the GST Act invoked in the FIR in connection with the alleged forged GST input tax credit scheme.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the Respondent-State: the prayer for bail was declined. The matter was disposed of with directions for expedited trial, and the petitioner was given liberty to renew the bail plea after three months if the prosecution's evidence remained incomplete through no fault of his own — a conditional, time-bound outcome rather than relief to the petitioner.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
  • Case No.: CRM-M-45698 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
  • Decision Date: 04-12-2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of - relief declined, trial court directed to expedite examination of witnesses

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (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.