Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satveer Singh Sekhon vs Directorate General Of Gst ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018568
CRM-M-59017-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
204 CRM-M-59017-2024 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 07.02.2025
SATVEER SINGH SEKHON ...PETITIONER
Versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE,
LUDHIANA AND ANR
... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and
Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate
Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate
Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS
for grant of regular bail in case No. INT/INTL/41/2024-Gr F-O/o ADG-
DGGI-ZU-Ludhiana registered under Section 132 of the Punjab Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 at Directorate General of GST Intelligence,
Zonal Unit, Ludhiana Punjab.
2. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that
under the special Act i.e. the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018568
there is specific procedure laid down to initiate penal action against the
present petitioner, if any offence is made out at all, but lodging of the
present FIR would tantamount to double jeopardy. He submits that no
notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act was given to the
petitioner, moreso, there is no assessment of alleged embezzlement of
GST committed by the petitioner, therefore prays for grant of regular bail
to the petitioner.
On behalf of the State and counsel for respondent No.1
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed
the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 months and 25
days.
Learned counsel for respondent No. and learned State
Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer
for grant of regular bail stating that if the petitioner is released on bail, he
is likely to influence the other persons, moreso, he is owning number of
firms and the offence committed by him has caused loss to the economy
of the State and there is evasion of around Rs. 30 crores and the
investigation is still going on. He further submits that the petitioner is
involved in more FIR, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, as per the principle of the criminal
jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars
for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018568
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another",
2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of
bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in
correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet
of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general
rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction
home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been
lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to
our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise
of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the
facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity
to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the
investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused
person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for
placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018568
Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was
participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing
when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is
not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some
genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a
factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case.
It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused
is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if
so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The
poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an
extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice
of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by
a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect
or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There
are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an
accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the
requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that
there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and
other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in
Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609
going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back
in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to
Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was
observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018568
The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old,
going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should
be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely
within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though
that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in
a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the
grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of
compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon
and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC
98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period
of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the
nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner
in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of
this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh
alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while
referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that
no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the
petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true
that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be
looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018568
with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such
eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of
pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the
petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
07.02.2025
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
