The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted the bail to accused involved in raising fake invoices and wrongfully claiming GST ITC.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil has observed that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3 years, 2 months and 16 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Table of Contents
Background
The petitioner has filed the bail application who was alleged of issuing fake invoices for the purpose of hoodwinking the Government through Bogus Input Tax Credit without actual receipt and supply of goods by the dealer.
The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as the petitioner was already in jail in another FIR.
The petitioner submitted that co-accused in whose name the alleged offence under GST Act is stated to have been commissioned, have already been granted concession of regular bail by the Trial Court.
The petitioner contended that he was not beneficiary in any manner directly or indirectly in the FIR wherein out of 40 PWs, only 8 PWs have been examined since framing of charges on 24.05.2022, therefore, conclusion of trial would take a long time.
The department opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner is involved in other FIRs also, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender but is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands presented on 28.01.2022 and charges stands framed on 24.05.2022.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception.
Article 21 of The Constitution And Grant of Bail To An Accused For Wrongfully Claiming GST ITC
The court stated that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”.
The court held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail.
Conclusion
The court directed that the petitioner is to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
Case Details
Case Title: Anupam Singla Versus State Of Haryana
Case No.: CRM-M-51963-2024
Date: 28.10.2024
Counsel For Petitioner: G.S. Sidhu
Counsel For Respondent: Chetan Sharma
