Case Title: Rohit and Anr. v. State of Haryana
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Petition No.: CRM-M-26515-2025
Judgment Date: 24 July 2025 (Reserved on 3 July 2025)
Relevant Section: Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Category: Criminal Bail under GST-related Fraud (Forgery and ITC Availment)
Related GST Provision: Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 (Provisional attachment of bank account)
Facts (Paras 1–3):
The petitioners, Rohit and another, were arrested in connection with FIR No. 45 dated 06.02.2025 registered at City Rewari Police Station under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The complaint originated from Bhagwan Singh Meena, Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Faridabad, alleging a conspiracy involving forged signatures of the Commissioner, CGST, Faridabad to defraud the exchequer.
It was discovered that a firm, M/s Saneha Export, falsely availed ITC of ₹4.51 crore on fictitious IGST invoices. The firm’s bank account at SBI Rewari was already frozen under Section 83 of the CGST Act, but forged letters bearing fake signatures of the Commissioner were used to unfreeze and attempt withdrawal of ₹3.29 crore. The fraud was uncovered when the bank sought verification from the CGST office. The petitioners were arrested in March 2025 for their alleged role in the conspiracy.
Questions for Determination:
Whether the petitioners, accused of forgery and GST fraud, should be granted regular bail considering the nature of the offense, duration of custody, and parity with co-accused already granted anticipatory bail.
Observations (Paras 6–13):
The Court observed that there existed prima facie evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged crime. However, it emphasized that pre-trial incarceration cannot be equated with post-conviction punishment.
Given that the petitioners had been in custody since 20 March 2025, the Court held that continued detention was not justified, especially since the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail in CRM-M-19317-2025. The Court stressed that bail serves to balance the interests of justice with the accused’s right to liberty, enabling reform and reintegration into society.
Justice Anoop Chitkara also underscored that the bail was conditional—any involvement in future non-bailable offenses would empower the State to seek cancellation of bail across all pending FIRs.
Judgment (Paras 8–16):
The Court allowed the bail petition, directing release of the petitioners upon furnishing appropriate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial or duty Magistrate. The petitioners were instructed to provide Aadhaar, passport (if any), mobile number, and email ID while executing personal bonds. They were also prohibited from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The Court clarified that these findings do not reflect an opinion on the case merits and are limited to the bail determination.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Verdict / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana | CRM-M-19317-2025 | Co-accused granted anticipatory bail; parity considered by the Court while granting regular bail to petitioners. |
Between Fine Lines (Trade Takeaway):
This judgment reaffirms that mere involvement in a GST-related fraud allegation does not warrant indefinite pre-trial custody, especially when evidence collection is complete and co-accused enjoy protection. It underscores judicial balance between economic offense gravity and the constitutional right to liberty, setting a precedent for fair treatment in fiscal fraud cases.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
