IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

230 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 Anupam Singla ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

12 07.01.2019 Sirsa City, District420, 467, 468, 471 and Sirsa 120-B of IPC (201 of IPC added later on)

2. As per the allegations, the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by Excise and Taxation Officer of State Taxes, Sirsa alleging that three firms namely, M/s Kamboj Brothers, M/s Mimanshu Brothers and M/s Thakur Industries had done business by obtaining bogus bills from different firms of Rohtak and Narnaul and had issued fake invoices to claim fraudulent Input Tax Credits without actual transactions thereby causing loss of huge amount of money to the State exchequer. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The records from the aforementioned firms were taken into possession. The proprietors of these firms namely, Mimanhsu Singla, Avinash Kumar and Rahul Kumar were arrersted. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and also about the complicity of the petitioner, on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as an additional accused. He was in custody in some other case and was joined into investigation of this case by way of issuance of production warrants on 04.01.2021 and was arrested. On interrogation, he too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the commission of subject crime along with other accused. It was revealed that he used to prepare fake invoices of fake transactions of firms which included the aforementioned firms and were not in existence actually being fake. Recoveries of certain documents was effected from him. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was presented and the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The previous petition filed by the petitioner bearing CRM-M No.15487 of 2024 was dismissed on 30.07.2024.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is in custody since 04.01.2021 i.e. for a period of 4 years and about 10 months. Out of 43 only 19 witnesses have been examined so far, despite the fact that while deciding the previous bail petition, direction was given to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. However, a period of more than 1 year and about 3 months has elapsed even thereafter. The trial has not progressed and will take considerable time to conclude. The extended/prolonged period of his incarceration is a sufficient ground for extending benefit of bail to him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has vehemently opposed the prayer as made by the petitioner by submitting that this is the second petition for grant of regular bail. His previous petition had been dismissed on merits. No new ground is made out for allowing the same and hence this petition is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition, the same being second petition for grant of bail is concerned, the well settled proposition of law is that rejection of a bail petition does not by itself forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time since decision of a Court qua regular bail petition is essentially an interlocutory order and the