Back
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Vipul Jindal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral). - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.571 dated 4.6.2019, Police Station Chandani Bagh, Panipat, District Panipat, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 259 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The instant FIR was lodged at the instance of ASI Vinod Kumar wherein it has been alleged that on 4.6.2019 when he along with other police officials was present near grain market bridge in connection with patrolling, then he received a secret information to the effect that one Rajesh Mittal, Inder Partap Singh and Manish are committing huge loss to the exchequer on account of fraudulent and bogus transactions. The information was further to the effect that the said accused float bogus firms and by entering into bogus transactions with bigger firms, they were getting huge amounts deposited in the bank accounts of the bogus firms so floated and were eventually facilitating the big firms to save on GST in fraudulent manner and thus, deprived the State Exchequer of the GST which was legitimately due. It was informed that the said accused were moving about in Hyundai 'i20' car be
The court considered the evidence, duration of custody, and bail granted to co-accused in deciding to grant bail to the petitioner.
The severity of economic offences, the need for a different approach in bail matters, and the larger interest of the public and State in such cases influenced the court's decision.
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply when offences under IPC and GST Act are distinct, emphasizing the serious nature of economic crimes.
The court emphasized the serious nature of economic offences, affirming that bail is the exception, especially when substantial financial loss to the state is involved.
Detention without substantial evidence and the principle of equal treatment in bail applications necessitate granting bail, especially when co-accused are already released.
The pendency of multiple FIRs against an accused does not justify the denial of bail if no incriminating evidence is presented.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
