TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The veracity of the prosecution case shall be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. Admittedly, the case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate. The petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2022 and 22 out of the 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded any time soon. No serious apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioner would abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty No. 55, Krishan Colony, Yamuna Nagar as proof of address of the business premises. During the course of inquiry, the given address was visited by the ETO but no such firm was found functioning at the said address. Further the person in whose name the rent agreement was entered, was contacted and it was found that Kamal Khetarpal was working in a bank at Jallandhar and his father Nar Singh Khetarpal was available at the said address i.e. 55, Krishna Colony, Yamuna Nagar. The rent agreement was shown to Nar Singh Khetarpal to ascertain the genuineness of the same. Nar Singh disclosed that his son was not living in the city and that he had not entered into any agreement of rent with Rayaan and no such firm in the name of Boston Internati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional having GSTIN 06CGIPR7078D122. The statement of the owner namely Nar Singh Dass Khetarpal of the house where the above mentioned firm had been shown to exist was recorded, who stated that no firm in the name of M/s Boston International was working at the said address. The documents pertaining to the statement of account No. 10008635961 maintained with IDFC Bank, New Delhi were taken into police possession, where Rayyan had got opened the account in the name of Boston International. The ID proof of Rayyan was taken into police possession and his address was found to be Rajiv Nagar, Harsh Vihar, East Delhi. Thereafter, from the Labour Department record pertaining to the aforesaid firm M/s Boston International was taken into police posse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On 05-07-2022, Mohsin Tyagi was joined in the investigation and his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Mohsin Tyagi stated that he had given the documents of Rayyan to the petitioner for a job. On 05-07-2022, the petitioner was joined in the investigation and he disclosed that he had taken the documents of Rayyan from Mohsin Tyagi for granting him a job. Thereafter, on 07-07-2022, Dhruv Jain was joined in the investigation and his statement was recorded. He stated that he was doing a job with the petitioner. Dhruv Jain was found innocent as he was working as an employee of the petitioner. On 13-07-2022, Sumit Agarwal was joined in the investigation and his statement was recorded. He sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... una Nagar in the name of Rayyan and M/s Boston International at Delhi in the name of Rupinder. Thus, it was found that the petitioner had formed bogus firms and had caused loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.3,05,10,099/-to the state exchequer. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He was merely filing the documents relating to GST, etc, as he was a tax consultant for which no formal degree was required. The main accused was Rupinder Singh who was running the firms alongwith his employees. As the petitioner was in custody since 21.07.2022 and 22 out of the 33 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he was entitled to the concession of bail, moreso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. The petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2022 and 22 out of the 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded any time soon. No serious apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioner would abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 8. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Puneet Sonkar, is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
