The pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be the sole basis to refuse the prayer of bail.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT J. ORAL

1. Reply by way of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State and the same is taken on record.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.4 dated 06.01.2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 132(1)(B)(C) of HGST Act, 2017, at Police Station Arya Nagar Rohtak, District Rohtak.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR in the present case was got registered by the Excise and Taxation Officer by alleging that the petitioner is creating false and bogus companies for extracting GST amount from the public. It was further alleged that he was issuing fake bills and had not deposited various amounts in the GST Department and caused a loss of Rs.10,233,769/- to the Department.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been named in the present case nor any specific role has been assigned to him. As per the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the present petitioner is that he had got registered the firm namely M/s Vishal Industries, after obtaining documents from its proprietor Vinod. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner got registered the said firm at the behest of Anupam Singla, co-accused. Later on, it was discovered that Anupam Singla, who was running the said firm, was indulging in tax evasion and huge loss has been caused to the Govt. Exchequer. Learned counsel further contends that by any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be held to the beneficiary of the said amount, which has been illegally taken by Anupam Singla. Learned counsel further contends that in the present case, the challan has already been presented against him and he has undergone more than 01 year and 11 months of custody. Thus, his further custody will not serve any meaningful purpose.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had caused loss of more than Rs.1 crore to the Govt. Exchequer and he had actively participated in the commission of crime and several other cases have been registered against him. However, she admits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone for a period of 01 years, 11 months and 12 days in the present case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., and another 2020(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831 has held that the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be basis to refuse the prayer of bail. Similar observations has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P., and another 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586.

8. Still further, no doubt, several other criminal cases have been registered against the present petitioner, but that cannot be sole ground to confine the present petitioner in jail for an indefinite period. The bail to a petitioner cannot be denied solely on the ground that several other cases are pending against him, even though, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the facts of the present case. In the present case also, the petitioner has already undergone more than 01 year and 11 months of the custody and the trial is at an initial stage. Even all the offences are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time.

9. In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall