Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Pankaj Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-43188 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.K. Bajaj, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab.

The court emphasized the right to bail in economic offences, balancing the seriousness of charges with the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Goods and Services Act, 2017 - Sections 132(1)(a), (b), (c), (i) - Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Section 69(1) - Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences involving issuance of fake bills causing loss to the State Exchequer exceeding Rs. 32 crores - The court emphasized that economic offences are serious but the presumption of innocence must be upheld, and bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charge. (Paras 1, 4, 11, 12)

(B) Bail - Considerations for grant - The court reiterated the parameters for bail applications, including the nature of the charge, severity of punishment, and risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court noted that the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheets are significant factors in deciding bail. (Paras 7, 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of issuing fake bills through paper firms, resulting in significant financial loss to the State. The petitioner has been in custody for over 11 months, and the investigation is concluded with a charge sheet filed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial, subject to stringent conditions, given the duration of custody and completion of investigation.

Issues: The main issues were the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner and the implications of prolonged custody without trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while economic offences are serious, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 must be preserved, and bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.

Result: Petition allowed; bail granted with conditions.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in complaint case No.CHA/ 170/2023 dated 27.03.2023 for offence punishable under Section 132(1)(a) (b)(c) and (i) of Punjab Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act read with Section 69(1) of Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pending in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.

2. The precise allegations levelled against the petitioner have been culled out in Para No.12 of the reply filed by way of affidavit of Shalinder Singh IO-cum-State Tax Officer, Jalandhar-2, dated 16.11.2023 which read as under :

"12. That the contents of the Para. 12 of the petition are denied on the pretext that a lot of incriminating evidence have been recovered and any area is investigated more and more evidence proving the fraudulent nature of the accused/petitioner come to the fore. More firms have come into the notice in which the accused/petitioner have been found committing the offence as stated in the complaint, and a lot of more areas are being investigated. Till filing the complaint the amount defrauded by the accused/petitioner was more than 16 Crores, and it has reached to more than 33 Crores, and more firms and requisite bank accounts of many firms are being explored even the firms the accused/petitioner himself has stated in the written statement during arrest are still being investigated, and if the accused/petitioner is released on bail, he may indulge in influencing witnesses and possibility of tempering with the evidence to be collected by the department, cannot be ruled out. Economic offence cannot be equated with any other offence."

3. The allegation in sum and substance against the petitioner is of issuing fake bills by creating paper firms and thereby having caused loss of more than Rs. 32.00 crores to the Exchequer by conniving with other co-accused.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that maximum punishment prescribed under law for the offence for which the petitioner has been booked and is being tried is 5 years. Its a Magisterial trial. The petitioner has already undergone more than 11 months and 18 days. Challan already stands presented and investigation stands concluded. He further relies upon 'Manoranjana Singh @ Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation' 2017 (2) SCC (Cri) 520 to submit that the detention in custody of an under trial person cannot be extended to an indefinite period as that would be in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further reads Manorajana Singh's case (supra) to hammer forth his contention that though seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail, but it cannot be the solitary test. Further reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-24033-2021 titled as 'Maninder Sharma v. State Tax Officer, State Tax, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab' decided on 31.08.2022.

5. Ld. State Counsel however opposes the bail plea claiming that huge loss has been caused to the State Exchequer and further submits that supplementary Challan is to be filed. However, it is not disputed that the supplementary challan relates to the documentary evidence collected by the Agency and the petitioner is in judicial custody only.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

7. The parameters to be considered while deciding the prayer for bail are well laid down by Apex Court in the case of 'State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, reported as 2005(8) SCC 21', holding that:

"xx xx xx