Back
N. S. SHEKHAWAT
Anupam Singla – 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 regular bail to him in case FIR No.04 dated 06.01.2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 132(1)B and C of GST Act, 2017, at Police Station Arya Nagar, District Rohtak.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint received from Excise Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer of State Tax, Rohtak and the same has been reproduced below:-
The pendency of multiple FIRs against an accused does not justify the denial of bail if no incriminating evidence is presented.
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.
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.
The court granted bail based on the duration of custody and the status of co-accused, emphasizing that trial may take a long time.
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 established that personal liberty must be protected and that the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail.
The court considered the evidence, duration of custody, and bail granted to co-accused in deciding to grant bail 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
