Facts of the Case

The FIR (No. 401 dated 12.10.2018, registered at Police Station Farakpur, Yamuna Nagar) arose from a complaint by an Excise and Taxation Officer alleging that one Rayyan had obtained GST registration in the name of "M/s Boston International" (GSTIN 06CGIPR7078D1Z2) with effect from 16.02.2018 by uploading a rent agreement and electricity bill for a business premises that, on inspection, was found not to exist — the person named in the rent agreement had never entered into it. The petitioner, Puneet Sonkar, was arraigned as a co-accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B of the IPC and was in custody since 21.07.2022. By the time of hearing, 22 of 33 prosecution witnesses had been examined, but the trial (before a Magistrate) was expected to take considerably longer to conclude.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail given the length of custody and the pace of the ongoing trial.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2022 with the trial unlikely to conclude soon, and no apprehension of absconding, tampering, or influencing witnesses was made out by the prosecution.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The case involved a serious scheme of registering a bogus firm to enable fraudulent transactions, though specific opposition to bail on this ground is not elaborated in the order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court applied the triple test for bail (flight risk, tampering, and influence over witnesses) and found none of these concerns were seriously raised against the petitioner.
  • Noting the petitioner's custody period and the slow pace of the trial (22 of 33 witnesses examined), the Court held further incarceration was not warranted.
  • Bail was granted expressly "without commenting upon the merits of the case" — the Court did not evaluate or rule on the underlying allegations of fictitious GST registration or ITC/billing fraud.
  • Conditions imposed included monthly reporting to police, an FDR of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and a bar on further offences.

Important Clarification

This order does not validate or reject any GST-fraud allegation — it decides only the narrow question of bail based on custody length and trial progress. Businesses and professionals should not read this as any comment on how "bogus firm" GST registration cases are treated on merits; that question remains open for trial.

Sections Involved

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Petitioner/Accused on the bail application only; disposed of without any decision on the merits of the GST-fraud allegations, which remain to be tried.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Case No.: CRM-M-19401-2023 (O&M)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Date of Decision: 22 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.