Emphasizing the fundamental rights of a person vis-à-vis custodial interrogation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that an accused cannot be denied the concession of bail in a complaint under Section 132 of the CGST Act, on account of pending investigation qua another accused. The Court highlighted that the matter of bail must be decided qua each accused individually, based on the specific role attributed to them.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that though economic offences by their very nature pose a threat to the State’s financial stability, however prerogative of the investigating agency cannot supersede fundamental rights of the accused. The Bench found that the entire case is based on documentary and electronic evidence, which are already available with the investigating agency, and all of the prosecution witnesses are officials of the respondent. As such, there is no scope for tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses.
In that vein, the Bench finds it against objective standards of reason and justice to deny bail to those accused against whom a final report has been presented merely on the ground that the investigation is in progress qua a co-accused. Therefore, when nothing was brought to the fore to suggest that the release of the petitioners would derail the investigation, the Bench was of the view that the investigation in progress cannot be used as a reason to keep the accused under custody indefinitely.
Briefly, information was received from the Financial Investigation Unit in the form of a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) indicating substantial cash withdrawals to the tune of ₹ 4,938.63 crores, from two branches of the IFSC Bank, Ambala Cantt. and Panchkula. The investigation culminated in a complaint alleging that the petitioners issued forged and fabricated GST invoices worth approximately ₹ 700 crores and availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to approximately Rs. 107 crores based on the same. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a writ under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in the case stemming from the above-mentioned complaint.
While answering the claim for regular bail, the Single Judge referred to the decision in the case of Ashutosh Garg vs. Union of India [SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8740/2024], where the Supreme Court has granted bail in a matter where the accused defrauded the State exchequer of ₹ 1032 crores as Input Tax Credit by creating 294 fake firms, citing long custody of 09 months as well as the fact that the maximum punishment in the offence u/s 132 CGST Act is 05 years. The High Court therefore directed the release of the petitioners on regular bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, a/w Advocates Kashish Sahnia, Arnav Ghai, Muskaan Gupta, and Muskan Chauhan, for the Appellant/ Taxpayer
Advocates Sharmila Sharma, Sunish Bindlish, Pridhi Sandhu, Manish Bansal, and Alankrit Bharadwaj, for the Respondent/ Department
