IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.
Yash Pal Jindal – Petitioner
Versus
State of UT, Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M-7501 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the basis of the bail petition under the law. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for bail based on lack of involvement. (Para 2) |
| 3. counterarguments regarding the petitioner’s involvement in fraud. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's decision to grant bail pending trial. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.PC. seeking bail pending trial in case FIR No.385 dated 13.12.2019 under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 120B and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Central Sector-17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1).
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that the case against the petitioner is totally concocted and fabricated. The petitioner is not involved in the crime at all. Even as per the story of the prosecution, petitioner is alleged to have issued fake bills in lieu of 5% commission of GST refunds claimed by the various traders through these bills. The petitioner is not alleged to have got any benefit directly from the GST department or any other government department in the transactions. Petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2022 and he is not required for any further investigation. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail pending trial.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the UT, Chandigarh, being instructed by Inspector Shiv Charan, submits that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime. She further submits that petitioner is part of the group of the fraudsters, who managed to grab a huge amounts on account of GST refunds. It is further submitted by the counsel that the petitioner is involved in one more case of similar nature. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2022 and that the petitioner is not required for any further investigation.
4. In view of the above, but without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
Indefinite incarceration is unjustified even in serious allegations; bail granted when continued custody serves no useful purpose.
Indefinite custody is unjustified when allegations are unadjudicated; bail granted to the petitioner.
The court emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence for serious charges under the GST Act and the accused's right to a fair trial.
The pendency of multiple FIRs against an accused does not justify the denial of bail if no incriminating evidence is presented.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.