Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 28 May, 2021
CRM-M- 16487 of 2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M- 16487 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.5.2021
...
Pawan Kumar
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and another
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. J.S. Ghuman, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate for the complainant.
...
H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral)
Case taken up through video conferencing.
CRM-13831-2021
This is an application for pre-ponment of hearing in the
main petition which is fixed for 23.8.2021.
Heard.
The application stands accepted. The main petition is
pre-poned and taken up today.
Main case.
Petitioner - Pawan Kumar, aged about 50 years, s/o
Joginder Pal, resident of House No. 243-B, Bhagya Hoes, Jain
1 of 6
Colony, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, was booked as an accused in
complaint under Section 132 (1) (b&c) punishable under Section 132
(1) (i) of CGST Act, 2017, read with corresponding Sections of
Punjab GST Act, 2007 and IGST Act, 2017.
As per allegations in the complaint, Sahil Jain, a co-accused
was the mastermind in carrying out fake transactions and creating 14
firms in which his family members and close friends were shown to
be proprietors/partners and on the strength of fake invoices, had
availed of inadmissible input tax credit, besides passing on
fraudulent input credits to the buyers on the strength of such invoices
running into Rs.17.65 crores. He was arrested in this case on
12.1.2021. The prosecution failed to complete the investigation
within the stipulated period of 60 days and file challan/complaint in
the Court, as such on an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.,
having been filed by accused - Pawan Kumar, that application was
allowed and he was granted bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the
sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount(at least
one local) and subject to various conditions i.e.:-
1. Accused shall furnish a bank guarantee/FDR for an
amount of Rs.55 Lakh to be forfeited to the State in case
of violation of any of the terms and conditions imposed
vide this order.
2. Accused shall come present on each and every date of
hearing for appearance in the Court and for trial of the
case.
2 of 6
3. Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Country
without permission of the Court. He shall surrender his
passport in the court if he possesses the same and in case
he do not hold any passport his undertaking in form of an
affidavit that he will not get any passport issued in his
name without permission of the court.
4. Accused shall not commit any offence of like nature or
any other offence punishable under law.
5. Accused shall not try to influence the witnesses of the
prosecution or tamper with the evidence.
6. Accused shall not change his appearance during the
course of trial.
7. Accused shall not change his address without prior
intimation to this Court.
8. Accused shall not induce, threat or promise any witness to
refrain him/her from deposing in the case during the
investigation or trial. Accused shall make available
himself before I.O./ Authority holding investigation to
assist the investigating machinery as and when called upon
to appear before the authority concerned till final
investigation or as and when directed by the Court and
accused will cooperate with the investigation even during
his release on bail.
9. In case of default by the accused in complying with the
conditions of bail enumerated above, his bail shall be
3 of 6
cancelled, his bail bonds and surety bonds liable to be
canceled and forfeited to the State and he shall be liable to
be prosecuted under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C."
The petitioner-accused found the conditions to be stringent
and onerous, as such has approached this Court by way of filing the
instant petition under Section 482 Cr,.P.C. praying that the conditions
of heavy surety and bank guarantee/FDR be withdrawn.
Notice of this petition was given to the State of Punjab and
complainant, who have put in appearance through counsel.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the complainant, as well as learned State counsel, besides
going through the record and I find that the petition is doomed for
failure.
It may be mentioned here that admittedly the petitioner had
filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions challenging such
conditions. However, it was withdrawn abruptly. The petitioner had
taken recourse to proper legal remedy but for the reason best known
to him, did not opt to pursue the revision and withdrew it.
As far as his approaching this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it needs to be mentioned here that Section 482 Cr.P.C. which
saves inherent powers of the High Court, is not a panacea for all the
ills. The litigant should adopt a proper mechanism provided under the
law for redressal of his grievances, instead of not doing so and
rushing to this Court asking it to interfere in the matter, exercising the
4 of 6
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If such practice is allowed, then the
litigants would rush to this court moving petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C., in a hope to get early decision, instead of availing of the
remedy provided under the law.
Nevertheless in the instant case, I do not see any reason to
use the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. since the conditions
imposed cannot be terms to be onerous, arbitrary or stringent.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused
is involved in a serious economic offence, resulting in scams,
involving crores of rupees, causing loss of Rs.17.65 crores to the
Government exchequer by passing the fraudulent ITC through
issuance of invoices without actual supply of any goods. To ensure
that he does not abscond and appear in the Court regularly and
should not make any effort to tamper with the prosecution evidence,
terms and conditions have rightly been imposed and no fault can be
found with the same. The co-accused of the present petitioner,
namely Sahil Jain, who was also granted bail under Section 167 (2)
Cr.P.C., imposing such like conditions, had approached this court
alleging the conditions to be unreasonable, praying for setting aside
of the same. His petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing CRM-M-
4374-2021 had been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
vide detailed order dated 3.3.2021, copy Annexure R-3, discussing
the factual and legal position on the subject in detail. The case of the
present petitioner is similar and identical to that of his co-accused
Sahil Jain. I do not see any reason to take a different view in the
5 of 6
matter. The order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Ludhiana, is quite detailed, well reasoned and I do not see any reason
to interfere with the same, as regards the conditions imposed for
release of the petitioner on bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to various
judgments i.e. 1) Sandeep Jain, vs. National Capital Territory of
Delhi rep. By Secretary, Home Deptt. in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of
2000 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No 1579 of 1999, decided on
18.1.2000; 2)Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Law Finder
Doc Id # 479321; 3) Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Law
Finder Doc Id # 9439 and 4) Runa Pasricha Rajpoot vs. State of
Haryana, Law Finder Doc Id # 1422210. But those are not
applicable due to different facts and circumstances and the context in
which such observations had been made.
Finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed.
( H.S. Madaan )
28.5.2021 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
