Charan Singh VS State of Haryana

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case filed under FIR No. 8 dated 5.1.2019, involving sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and Section 132 (1)(B)(C) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with co-accused Parveen Kumar, established a firm called M/s Poonam Industries in the name of Smt. Poonam, wife of Sanjay, residing in Village Nimoth, District Rewari. It’s alleged that the firm began operations on 27.04.2018 after obtaining registration from Central Authorities through fraudulent means. The prosecution claims that the firm reported “NIL” turnover for the months of April to September 2018. However, in October and November 2018, it purportedly declared turnovers of ₹22,83,37,565/- and ₹2,40,64,01,917/- respectively. The prosecution further alleges that the sales reported by the firm were to 18 different firms, the details of which are provided but not elaborated upon in the summary.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with co-accused Parveen Kumar, fraudulently registered a firm named M/s Poonam Industries in the name of Smt. Poonam, wife of Sanjay from Village Nimoth, District Rewari. Although the firm claimed to have commenced business in April 2018 after obtaining registration from Central Authorities, it was found that the firm filed nil turnover returns for April to September 2018, but suddenly reported turnovers of 22,83,37,565/- and 2,40,64,01,917/- for October and November 2018 respectively. Investigation revealed that the firms listed as customers in the firm’s records were non-existent, and the transactions recorded were merely on paper.

Furthermore, the prosecution asserts that the petitioner confessed to obtaining documents from Smt. Poonam, opening a bank account in her name at Canara Bank in Kanina, and providing the cheque book and SIM card to co-accused Anupam Singla. Allegedly, Singla paid 2,50,000/- for these documents, with the petitioner receiving 1,25,000/- as his share. During the investigation, `20,000/- of this amount were recovered from the petitioner by the police. Anupam Singla is accused of defrauding the government department of crores of rupees by establishing fake firms, and the petitioner is implicated in the case under various sections of IPC and the HGST Act due to his alleged involvement in the fraud.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with co-accused Parveen Kumar, fraudulently registered a firm named M/s Poonam Industries in the name of Smt. Poonam. The firm allegedly showed significant turnovers for October and November 2018, but investigations revealed that the firms involved were fake, and the transactions were only on paper.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner admitted to his involvement in obtaining documents from Smt. Poonam to register the firm and opening a bank account. The main accused, Anupam Singla, is alleged to have orchestrated the fraud, defrauding the government of crores of rupees. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner was merely a pawn used by the co-accused and that Anupam Singla is the main culprit. Even if the allegations against the petitioner are true, his counsel contends that his role was limited to collecting documents for the registration of the firm.

The petitioner’s plea for bail rests on the assertion that he played a minor role in the alleged fraud and that he should not be held accountable for the actions of the main accused.

The petitioner in this case is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 8 dated 5.1.2019, which involves allegations under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 132 (1)(B)(C) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh.

The prosecution’s case outlines that the petitioner, along with co-accused Parveen Kumar, established a firm named M/s Poonam Industries in the name of Smt. Poonam, wife of Sanjay from Village Nimoth, District Rewari. Allegedly, the firm commenced business fraudulently after registering with Central Authorities. The firm reported “NIL” turnover for April to September 2018, but suddenly showed turnovers of 22,83,37,565/- and 2,40,64,01,917/- for October and November 2018, respectively. Investigation revealed that the firms listed in the transactions were fake entities, and the disclosed transactions were only on paper.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner confessed to his involvement, stating that he and co-accused Parveen Kumar obtained documents from Smt. Poonam to register M/s Poonam Industries. They opened a bank account in Canara Bank, Kanina, and handed over the cheque book and other documents to co-accused Anupam Singla. Anupam Singla is alleged to be the mastermind behind defrauding the government department of crores of rupees, leading to the registration of the present case under various sections of IPC and the HGST Act.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner was merely a pawn used by the main accused, Anupam Singla, and his involvement was limited to collecting documents for registration purposes. The counsel also highlights the petitioner’s prolonged detention of over 2 years and 3 months, suggesting he deserves regular bail.

On the contrary, the State counsel contends that the petitioner played a significant role in facilitating the fraud by establishing the firm, obtaining bank accounts, and acquiring signed cheques, indicating his clear involvement. Moreover, the State counsel mentions the petitioner’s involvement in five similar cases, implying a pattern of criminal behavior and arguing against granting regular bail.

In essence, the case revolves around the alleged fraudulent activities of establishing fake firms and siphoning off significant sums of money, with the petitioner’s role being debated between being a pawn or an active participant in the scheme. The decision on granting regular bail hinges on the court’s assessment of the petitioner’s level of involvement and the risk of reoffending.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with co-accused Parveen Kumar, fraudulently registered a firm named M/s Poonam Industries in the name of Smt. Poonam, showing significant turnovers in subsequent months through fake transactions with non-existent firms.

The prosecution further claims that the petitioner confessed to his involvement in obtaining documents from Smt. Poonam and setting up the firm and associated bank account. The main accused, Anupam Singla, allegedly orchestrated the entire fraud, leading to substantial losses for the government. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner was merely a pawn used by the main accused and had a minor role in collecting documents and facilitating the fraud.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasizes that the petitioner has already spent over two years and three months in custody and deserves bail. On the other hand, the State counsel opposes the bail, citing the petitioner’s involvement in similar cases and labeling him as a seasoned criminal.

After considering both sides, the court acknowledges the petitioner’s prolonged detention and concludes that keeping him in custody further would serve no useful purpose, especially considering he is not the main accused. Therefore, the court grants the petitioner regular bail, subject to the fulfillment of bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: