TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. It would be appropriate to refer to para 3 of the bail petition, which reads as follows: 3. That the petitioner is filling the present regular bail petition directly before this Hon'ble Court in the wake of order dated 08.04.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the petition bearing CRM-M-4430 of 2024 filed by the said firm for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. Even otherwise, this Hon'ble Court has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present regular bail petition in terms of provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. This is first petition for grant of regular bail. 4. The facts of the case are being taken from the reply dated 18.04.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows: "1. That there was source information to the effect that Government Revenue such as GST (CGST/SGST) & Royalty is being evaded by way of taking material from the mine at Ratewali, Panchkula in Trucks/Dumpers without issuing any bills and mining beyond permissible limit by M / s Tirupati Roadways Mine at village Ratewali. In order to verify the said source information, a team was formed who conducted Surprise Check on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. That in order to further ascertain the role of officers/officials of the mining department and to crack the whole conspiracy in the matter, a detailed report was sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Vigilance Department, Chandigarh for registration of criminal case under section 420, 379, 414 of IPC and section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulatory) Act 1957 (MMDR Act 1957) and 13 (1) (a) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act against owners of the said firm and the unknown Government servants of Mining Department Panchkula office. On receipt of permission of the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Vigilance Department vide order Endorsement No. 32/12/2022-4VI dated 16.08.2022 and further order issued vide endorsement 13345/1-1/SVB(H) dated 18.08.2022 of the DG/SVB/ Haryana an FIR No.09 dated 25.08.2022, under section 420, 379, 414 of IPC and section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulatory) Act 1957 (MMDR Act 1957) and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (a) of PC Act has Been registered in the present case against the owners of the said firm and the unknown public servants of Mining Department of Panchkula and investigation is going on. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 2 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail. 10. In the present case, the petitioner chose to come straightway to this Court and has given reasons for that in para no. 3 of petition. Reasons for filing petition before this Court is that during the pendency of the quashing petition when petitioner prayed for stay on proceeding/investigation, this Court permitted him to file petition under Section 438 CrPC. Given the explanation, there would be no justification to dismiss the present petition only on the grounds that he has forfeited one of his rights to file a petition firstly to the Sessions Court. In fact by straightway coming to this Court any accused would lose one of the statutory right of getting their bail petition adjudicated by the Sessions Court first. In this process such an accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms: (a). Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND (b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. OR (b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favor of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the petitioner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such information from the petitioner's AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally entitled by this order. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655, [para 45], while granting bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposition of the similar condition, which reads as follows, "(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the time they remain on bail and shall inform the Investigating Officer of the NIA, their respective mobile numbers." 18. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence. 19. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats ....