Stringent bail conditions can be justified in cases involving serious economic offences to prevent absconding and tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT

H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral). - Case taken up through video conferencing.

CRM-13 831-2021

2. This is an application for pre-ponment of hearing in the main petition which is fixed for 23.8.2021.

3. Heard.

4. The application stands accepted. The main petition is pre-poned and taken up today.

5. Main case.

6. Petitioner - Pawan Kumar, aged about 50 years, s/o Joginder Pal, resident of House No. 243-B, Bhagya Hoes, JainColony, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, was booked as an accused in complaint under Section 132 (1) (b&c) punishable under Section 132 (1) (i) of CGST Act, 2017, read with corresponding Sections of Punjab GST Act, 2007 and IGST Act, 2017.

7. As per allegations in the complaint, Sahil Jain, a co-accused was the mastermind in carrying out fake transactions and creating 14 firms in which his family members and close friends were shown to be proprietors/partners and on the strength of fake invoices, had availed of inadmissible input tax credit, besides passing on fraudulent input credits to the buyers on the strength of such invoices running into Rs. 17.65 crores. He was arrested in this case on 12.1.2021. The prosecution failed to complete the investigation within the stipulated period of 60 days and file challan/complaint in the Court, as such on an application under Section 167(2) CrP.C, having been filed by accused - Pawan Kumar, that application was allowed and he was granted bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount(at least one local) and subject to various conditions i.e.:-

1. Accused shall furnish a bank guarantee/FDR for an amount of Rs.55 Lakh to be forfeited to the State in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions imposed vide this order.

2. Accused shall come present on each and every date of hearing for appearance in the Court and for trial of the case.

3. Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Country without permission of the Court. He shall surrender his passport in the court if he possesses the same and in case he do not hold any passport his undertaking in form of an affidavit that he will not get any passport issued in his name without permission of the court.

4. Accused shall not commit any offence of like nature or any other offence punishable under law.

5. Accused shall not try to influence the witnesses of the prosecution or tamper with the evidence.

6. Accused shall not change his appearance during the course of trial.

7. Accused shall not change his address without prior intimation to this Court.

8. Accused shall not induce, threat or promise any witness to refrain him/her from deposing in the case during the investigation or trial. Accused shall make available himself before I.O./ Authority holding investigation to assist the investigating machinery as and when called upon to appear before the authority concerned till final investigation or as and when directed by the Court and accused will cooperate with the investigation even during his release on bail.

9. In case of default by the accused in complying with the conditions of bail enumerated above, his bail shall be cancelled, his bail bonds and surety bonds liable to be canceled and forfeited to the State and he shall be liable to be prosecuted under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C."

8. The petitioner-accused found the conditions to be stringent and onerous, as such has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr,.P.C. praying that the conditions of heavy surety and bank guarantee/FDR be withdrawn.

9. Notice of this petition was given to the State of Punjab and complainant, who have put in appearance through counsel.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as learned State counsel, besides going through the record and I find that the petition is doomed for failure.

11. It may be mentioned here that admittedly the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions challenging