Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate and Mr. Rishab Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.645 dated 24.10.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

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 xx

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 Bhati 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 his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused."

6. Coordinate Bench in Maninder Sharma's case (supra) laid down the following tripode test while dealing with economic offences:-

"xx xx xx Further, while considering the grant of bail, the triple/tripod test would also be a relevant consideration. The three factors as set out in the said test are:- (i) Whether the accused is a flight risk; (ii) Whether the accused will tamper with the evidence, if granted bail & (iii) whether the accused could influence the witnesses, if granted bail. 8. Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts) , in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule.

However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant."

7. There is no denial to the fact that the economic offences constitute a separate class of their own, but trite it is that presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which the criminal jurisprudence rests. Time and again, Apex Court has reiterated the need to integrate th