The main legal point established is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the seriousness of the charge alone cannot be a factor in denying the right to liberty. The completion of investigation and the availability of other recovery modes are crucial in determining bail conditions.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia , J. - Present petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek quashing of the condition in order dated 08.04.2020 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby, while granting bail to the petitioner, he has been directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,00,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Learned Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Similarly, he has been directed to pay the outstanding liability of Rs.1,94,78,017/- along with interest which is stated to be in respect of his firm, M/s Maa Karni Yarns GSTIN No.06AVKPS9526QIZI under Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the 'Act'). Certain other conditions had been also imposed regarding submitting of passport and joining investigation and abiding by all conditions envisaged under Section 438 Cr.P.C., apart from directions not to influence or threaten the witness of the prosecution.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, thus, has argued that the said onerous conditions resulted in practically denying the grant of bail to the petitioner as he is not in a position to pay the said outstanding amount. It is further submitted that there is a presumption of innocence against the accused and a finding has to be recorded by a competent Court of jurisdiction that the petitioner is guilty and since a complaint has been filed under the relevant provisions, the said condition is on the wrong prior assumption that the petitioner is guilty. Vide the impugned order, direction has, thus, been issued for recovery of the amount which is not permissible as it amounts to prejudging the issue. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013) 1 SCC 570 in this regard, which pertains to the provisions and conditions imposed in a petition under Section 438 in a FIR lodged under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, wherein while granting anticipatory bail, the Delhi High Court had directed that a sum of Rs.1 crore be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the complainant in the nationalized bank. It is, accordingly, argued in support of his contention that putting such a condition for grant of bail is unwarranted.

3. State Counsel, on the other hand, has justified the imposition of the conditions by submitting that a complaint had been filed under the Act against the accused which is pending before the competent Court. Petitioner had already been arrested by the police in FIR No.571 dated 04.06.2019 lodged at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 259 IPC. He was involved in floating bogus firms and supply of fake invoices and facilitating loss of huge amount of revenue to the State Exchequer. Therefore, once the amount exceeded Rs.5 crores, the offence would become non-bailable under Section 132(1)(l)(i) and Sub-section (5) of the Act. Apart from the fact that there was a non-existent firm in the name of M/s Maa Karni Yarns due to which tax had been evaded of Rs.1,94,78,017/-. The details were also given as to how the petitioner had shown purchases from fake firms along with other accused, in support of the order, to submit that it would protect the interest of the Exchequer and the prosecution.

4. After hearing arguments advanced from both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the condition is onerous and is liable to be set aside, for the reasons given hereunder.

5. It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested after logding of the FIR on 06.09.2019 and he is in custody since then and a period of almost a year has gone by. The Addl.Sessions Judge, Panipat rightly came to the conclusion that the offences punishable when the amount of input tax credit or refund of tax does not exceed Rs.500 lakhs, the offences are cognizable and non-bailable. It was noticed that vide order dated 24.06.2019, there was authorization to effect his arrest. It was noticed that FIR No.571 had already been lodged against the petitioner for t