2022 (9) TMI 119 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - availment of fraudulent Input tax Credit - non-existence firms - cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document - extent of punishment - existence of serious charge - Section 132(1) (a), (b) & (c) of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter upon which he has not yet been convicted or that in any circumstances he should be deprived of his liberty only upon the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses/evidence, if granted bail except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Undoubtedly, the seriousness of the charges against the accused are no doubt one of the relevant considerations while considering the bail application but it would not be the only factor. The other relevant factor would be the sentence that could be imposed upon the said accused after trial and conviction. If seriousness of the charge was the only test then it would not be balancing the constitutional rights. 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.

Since the grant or refusal of bail lies in the discretion of the Court the discretion is to be exercised with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. However, bail is not to be denied to satisfy the collective sentiments of a community or as a punitive measure.

Coming back to the facts of the present case, it may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners were arrested on 13.03.2021 and the complaint came to be filed on 12.05.2021. Therefore, as on date they have undergone a total custody period of approximately 01 year and 06 months. The maximum sentence that could be awarded would be 05 years. As yet, even the charges have not been framed and as many as 66 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, at any rate, the trial cannot be concluded any time soon. Further no serious apprehension has been expressed by the prosecution of the petitioners being flight risks, or that they would tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses in case bail was granted to them. Even otherwise the evidence is primarily documentary in nature and in custody of the State.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitions are allowed and the petitioner- Maninder Sharma son of Sh. Satya Varat Rattan, petitioner-Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash, Sunny Mehta son of Sh. Kuldeep Mehta and Sandeep Singh son of Sh. Ikbal Singh are ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, concerned which is at liberty to impose any stringent conditions that it deems appropriate.

Petition disposed off.