JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.123 dated 09.08.2019, under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 added later on, registered at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula.

2. It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for the last one year and investigation of the case has been completed and thereafter the challan has been presented before the competent Court but charges have not been framed till date.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present is the second bail petition filed by the petitioner and his earlier bail petition in CRM-M-23068 of 2022 was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 24.08.2022.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by the Excise & Taxation Officer, Panchkula with the allegation that the petitioner stated to be a proprietor of M/s Recycle With Us, Plot No.329 I.A., Phase 2, Panchkula had allegedly committed a fraudulent activity and which was detected on the basis of physical verification of the aforesaid firm and on the basis of which the present FIR was lodged under Sections 420 , 467, 468 and 471 IPC and later on Section 132 of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 was also added vide report dated 12.04.2022 under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 is a self contained Code itself and under the Act only a complaint can lie to the Magistrate on the basis of a complaint made by the competent officer of the GST Department whereas in the present case an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 on the allegations which are a subject matter of the GST Act pertaining to the receipt of Input Tax Credit in an illegal manner.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact an FIR could not have been registered under the aforesaid provision of IPC and instead of filing of a complaint before the Magistrate under the GST Act, the aforesaid FIR has been lodged which is an abuse of process of law and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail.

6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even otherwise the allegations in the present case are with regard to the amount which is stated to be Rs.2,68,74,696/- and even if the allegations are presumingly taken to be true pertaining to the aforesaid amount even then the offence under Section 132 of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 is a bailable offence since the value is less than Rs.5,00,00,000/- and therefore the petitioner was entitled for the grant of bail on that count as well. He submitted that considering the custody of one year of the petitioner, he may be considered for the grant of bail.

7. On the other hand, Ms. Nidhi Garg, learned AAG, Haryana has filed an affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Panchkula, which is taken on record and a copy of which has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that on the last date of hearing the Court had dealt with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the guidelines and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another 2014(8) SCC 273 has been complied with or not and therefore the present affidavit