TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner granted regular bail after 3+ years detention for IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and HGST Act section 132 charges</h1> <h3>Anupam Singla Versus State Of Haryana</h3> Anupam Singla Versus State Of Haryana - 2024:PHHC:141397 Issues Involved:1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.2. Allegations of fraud and fake invoicing under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 132(1)(b)(c) of HGST Act, 2017.3. Petitioner's alleged involvement and incarceration.4. Principle of presumption of innocence and right to a speedy trial.5. Consideration of criminal antecedents in granting bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and was already in jail for another FIR. It was highlighted that co-accused had been granted bail, and the petitioner was not a direct beneficiary of the alleged offenses. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's involvement in other FIRs, suggesting a habitual offender. However, the court noted that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over three years, and the trial's conclusion was not imminent, thus warranting consideration for bail.2. Allegations of Fraud and Fake Invoicing:The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with others, was involved in issuing fake invoices to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods. The prosecution's case was based on investigations revealing non-existent business activities and fraudulent transactions involving multiple firms. The petitioner was accused of conspiring to defraud the government by utilizing bogus ITC, causing revenue loss to the state and central exchequers.3. Petitioner's Alleged Involvement and Incarceration:The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the fraud and had been in custody for a substantial period, with only a fraction of witnesses examined. The State acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged detention but emphasized his involvement in other FIRs. The court considered the petitioner's extended incarceration and the slow progress of the trial as factors justifying bail.4. Principle of Presumption of Innocence and Right to a Speedy Trial:The court reiterated the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence, emphasizing that an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. It referenced the Supreme Court's stance that bail is a general rule, and incarceration is an exception. The court also highlighted the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that prolonged pre-trial detention undermines this constitutional right.5. Consideration of Criminal Antecedents in Granting Bail:While the State highlighted the petitioner's criminal antecedents, the court emphasized that each case must be evaluated on its own merits. It referenced previous judgments underscoring that the pendency of other cases should not automatically preclude bail, provided the evidence in the current case is independently assessed. The court stressed the importance of a humane approach in considering bail applications, even for those with prior records.Decision:The court directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It clarified that the observations made should not influence the merits of the case. The petition was allowed, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the petitioner's rights under the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
