Back
N. S. SHEKHAWAT
Adwait Gupta @ Monu – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR No.191 dated 18.06.2019 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477-A IPC and Section 132(1)(b) of Central Goods and Sevices Tax Act, (CGST), 2017 at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint moved by Vijender Singh Excise Taxation Officer-cum- Proper Officer Ward No.5, Sirsa and the same has been reproduced as under:-
The court ruled that continued custody of the petitioner was unnecessary given the nature of the evidence and the duration of detention, allowing for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The pendency of multiple FIRs against an accused does not justify the denial of bail if no incriminating evidence is presented.
Accused granted bail due to prolonged custody, lack of evidence, and the trial's lengthy nature, emphasizing the maintainability of the FIR will be adjudicated in trial.
Indefinite incarceration is unjustified even in serious allegations; bail granted when continued custody serves no useful purpose.
The court granted bail based on the petitioner's lengthy incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, emphasizing that the decision does not affect the merits of the case.
The court granted bail based on the duration of custody and the status of co-accused, emphasizing that trial may take a long time.
Indefinite custody is unjustified when allegations are unadjudicated; bail granted to the petitioner.
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
