VIPIN GARG ALIAS BINDU VS THE STATE OF HARYANA

Certainly! The summary of the case involves the appellant, Vipn Garg, who has been arrested on allegations of misusing input credit under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. He has been in detention since January 27, 2022. It’s worth noting that a co-accused has already been granted bail on June 29, 2022. The appellant’s counsel highlights that a charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. This sets the stage for a legal battle where arguments will revolve around the specifics of the alleged misuse of input credit and whether the appellant should also be granted bail like the co-accused.

In a recent court session, the legal representatives of both parties presented their arguments. The appellant, Vipn Garg, has been detained since January 27, 2022, primarily on the accusation of misusing input credit under the Central Goods and Services Act of 2017. It was highlighted on behalf of the appellant that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail on June 29, 2022. Additionally, it was noted that a charge-sheet has been filed in the case.

Mr. Deepak Thukral, Deputy Advocate General of Haryana, opposing the bail plea, emphasized that the accused have allegedly caused a loss of rupees six crores to the exchequer, and no recovery has been made yet. However, the court did not find the continued detention of the appellant necessary solely based on this reason. Notably, the State has not filed any petition for special leave to appeal against the bail granted to the co-accused by the High Court.

Heard learned counsel representing both sides in the case. The appellant, Vipn Garg, has been arrested primarily on charges related to the misuse of input credit under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and has been in detention since January 27, 2022. It was noted that a co-accused had already been granted bail on June 29, 2022. The appellant’s counsel highlighted that a charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

However, Mr. Deepak Thukral, Deputy AG of Haryana, opposing the bail plea, emphasized that the accused persons have caused a loss of approximately six crores to the exchequer, and no recovery has been made yet. Despite this, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that further detention pending trial is unnecessary, especially considering that the State has not filed any petition for special leave to appeal regarding the co-accused who has already been granted bail by the High Court.

Given these circumstances, the court decided to set aside the order under appeal.

In a recent court hearing, both sides were represented by learned counsel. The case revolves around Vipn Garg, the appellant, who has been detained since January 27, 2022, primarily accused of misusing input credit under the Central Goods and Services Act of 2017. Notably, a co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail on June 29, 2022.

The appellant’s counsel highlighted the submission of the charge-sheet and argued for bail. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Thukral, Deputy AG of Haryana, opposing bail, emphasized that the accused caused a substantial loss of six crores to the exchequer, with no recovery having been made yet.

However, the court found the detention of the appellant unnecessary pending trial, especially considering that no special leave petition had been filed by the State concerning the co-accused who had already been granted bail by the High Court. In light of these circumstances, the court overturned the previous order and directed the release of the appellant on bail. The terms and conditions of the bail were left to the discretion of the Trial Court, with the stipulation that the appellant must not hinder the trial proceedings and must regularly attend court sessions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Supreme Court of India 

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law