JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Prayer in the petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR No.355 dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468 and 471, 120-B of IPC (Sections 409 of IPC added later on) and Section 132 CGST Act, 2017 at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. Counsel for the petitioner refers to order dated 22.03.2024 passed in CRM-M-14024-2024 whereby co-accused Padam Bansal has already been granted regular bail by this Court observing as under:-

"1. The afore-captioned petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail pending trial in the following FIRs :

2. All the matters involve similar allegations, thus the same are being disposed off by common order.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prime accused Amit Bansal stands admitted to bail vide order dated 08.02.2024, observing as under:-

"xx xx xxx

3. Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the matters relate to evasion of tax under Haryana VAT Act and in light of Section 37 read with Section 38, petitioners ought not have been booked for offences punishable under IPC.

4. The legislature in its own wisdom has excluded the jurisdiction of police authorities and provisions of Indian Penal Code. It is evident from the fact that the officer though has been provided with power under 1973 Code, but there is no power of custodial interrogation. The legislature has provided specific penal provisions in VAT Act, which is a complete code in itself. Officers have been clothed only with the power as provided under Code of 1973. Thus, jurisdiction of police stands excluded. Reliance is being placed upon Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5274.

5. 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 vs. Amaramani Tripathi, reported as 2005(8) SCC 21', holding that:

"xx xx xx It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bliati vs. NCT, Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that liis mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use liis liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evide