Prince Kum e Kumar and another v. State of Pun of Punjab and another
Case Details
CRM-M- -33635-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 230 CRM-M-33635-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 Prince Kum e Kumar and another v. State of Pun of Punjab and another …Petitioners. ents. …Respondents. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Vipin Ghai, Senior Advoc Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advoc Advocate with Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior A Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate an Mr. Parth Sharma, Advocate fo nior Advocate with cate and cate for respondent No.2. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. This petition for grant of bail f bail under Section 483 of BNSS, ha SS, has been filed ccused filed by petitioners, an accused in criminal complaint N t No. COMA/63 /6309/2025 dated 3.5.2025, title , titled “Director General of GS GST Intelligenc gence v. Prince Kumar and another other” registered against them for th for the commission ission of offences punishable unde under Sections 132(1)(B), 132(1)( 32(1)(c) punishable shable with Sub Clause (i) of Section ection 132(1) of Central Goods Servic Service Tax Act, 2 Act, 2017 (in short “the CGST Ac T Act”) read with Section 20 of th of the Integrated G rated Goods and Service Tax Act, 201 ct, 2017 (in short “the IGST Act”). 2. In brief, the allegation ag on against petitioners is that hey the created/setu ed/setup an elaborate network of of 34 firms in the name of fami family members, bers, 30 of which were bogus ogus firms, created solely for the GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 -2- purpose of ose of generating fake invoices and pas nd passing fraudulent Input Tax Credi Credit. However, 4 ever, 4 firms were engaged in some le me legitimate business activities. Eve s. Even these 4 firm 4 firms have availed fraudulent ITC t ITC from non-existent/fake firms. irms. It has been been alleged that petitioners defra defrauded the State Exchequer o quer of approximat oximately Rs.81.61 crores and passed passed on ITC amounting to Rs.78 78.97 crores appr s approximately. In the complaint file int filed by the complainant-departmen artment, it has bee s been averred that on the basis basis of intelligence received by th by the Additional tional Director General, Directorate ctorate General of GST Intelligenc lligence, Ludhiana,
Facts
iana, regarding suspicious firms, inve s, investigation was initiated against ainst the firms that that were involved in availing and g and passing of Fraudulent Input Ta put Tax Credit. In th it. In the complaint, the details of the f the firms have been mentioned. It wa . It was noticed tha ed that these suspected firms were in ere in the name of family members an ers and using the ID the IDs of others persons. Further a non- rther all the suspicious firms were non existent, sa ent, same electricity bill/meter numbe number with modified particulars we were used for ob for obtaining GST registration of mu of multiple firms, as well as fabricate bricated rent agreem agreements were used. Even call deta ll detail records of the mobile numbe umbers registered w tered with these fake firms, as per co per complainant-department, indicate ndicated that they w they were being used in the mobi mobile handsets with specific IME c IMEI numbers lin ers linked to petitioner’s network. On the basis of incriminati minating documents collected by th by the department rtment, search was conducted on 04.0 .03.2025 at the residential premise remises of petitione titioners, as also in their office. Statem Statements of petitioners were recorde ecorded, who admitt admitted their role in operating fake fi fake firms. In crux, the allegation agains against petitioners is that they are the mastermind ermind, who operated bogus firms firms registered under the CGST GST in GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 -3- Ludhiana, w , wrongfully availed ITC of Rs. f Rs.81.61 crores and further passed o ssed on the ITC am TC amounting to Rs.78.97 crores. Petitioners, who were arreste arrested on 05.03.2025 have been been in custody sin since then. Complaint was filed b filed before the competent Court aft urt after completion letion of necessary investigation/enq n/enquiry, the same is pending befo before ourt. the Court. 3. Bail application was moved b oved by the petitioners before learne learned Additional tional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whic a, which came to be dismissed in term in terms of order da der dated 28.5.2025 (Annexure P-4) 4). Aggrieved of the same, prese present petition has ion has been filed. 4.
Legal Reasoning
We are of the view that that the appellants are entitled to th to the grant of bail pending ing trial on stringent conditions ons in order to ally the appreh prehension expressed by CBI.” (emphasis added dded) Further still, recently, in Ashut Ashutosh Garg’s case (supra), Hon’bl on’ble Supreme C eme Court granted bail in a matter w atter where the accused defrauded th ded the State exche exchequer of Rs.1032 crore as Input Input Tax Credit by creating 294 fak 94 fake firms, citin citing long custody of 09 months a nths as well as the fact that maximu aximum punishment shment in the offence under Section 13 tion 132 CGST Act is 05 years. A two Judge bench of th of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt in Ratnambar mbar Kaushik’s case (supra), , deliberated upon the largely large documentar mentary and electronic nature of evide evidence as well as the prolonged tri ged trial in matters atters pertaining to tax evasion under t nder the CGST Act, where the accuse accused had underg ndergone about 4 months of custody, stody, and opined as follows: “6. In considering the appli pplication for bail, it is noted that th at the petitioner was arrested on 21. 21.07.2022 and while in custody, th dy, the investigation has been comple mpleted and the charge sheet has bee s been filed. Even if it is taken note t ote that the alleged evasion of tax b tax by the petitioner is to the extent a tent as provided under Section 132(1 132(1) (l)(i), the punishment provid ovided is, imprisonment which ma h may extend to 5 years and fin fine. The petitioner has alread lready undergone incarceration for for more than four months an s and completion of trial, in any any event, would take some tim time. Needless to mention that the the petitioner if released on bail, ail, is required to adhere to the the conditions to be imposed an d and diligently participate in the the trial. Further, in a case of th of the present nature, the evidence nce to be tendered by the responden ndent GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 12- -12 would essentially be documen umentary and electronic. The ocula ocular evidence will be through offic official witnesses, due to which ther there can be no apprehension on of tampering, intimidating o ng or influencing. Therefore, ke keeping all ts these aspects in perspective, in the facts and c nd circumstances of the present cas t case, we find it proper to grant the p the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. Hence, it is directed th ed that the petitioner be released o ed on bail subject to the conditions ions to be imposed by the trial Cour Court, which among others, shall als ll also include the condition to dire direct the petitioner to deposit his t his passport. Further, such oth other conditions shall also be impos posed by the trial Court to secure th re the presence of the petitioner to d to diligently participate in the trial. rial. It is further directed that the p he petitioner be produced before th re the trial Court forthwith, to ensure nsure compliance of this order.” ded) (emphasis added) It thus emerges that even in ca n in cases involving economic offence ffences, the Court s ourt seized of the matter has to go th go through the gravity of the offenc offence, the object bject of the Act, the attending circ g circumstances, etc. Thus, econom onomic offences cannot be categorized in one g one group and the Court should n uld not proceed on eed on the presumption that “Denial o ial of Bail is the Rule and grant bein being the exceptio eption”. 8. In the case in hand, the alleg allegations against petitioners are th are that they are are key-persons in creating/ope ng/operating firms and wrongful ongfully availed/pas ed/passed input tax credit amounting t nting to Rs.160.58 crores, thus, causin causing loss to the the State Exchequer. These claims a laims are yet to be proved. The fact th fact that they have ve been in custody since 05.03 5.03.2025, has been admitted by th by the respondent ndent department. Their (petitioners) oners) further detention is not justifie justified as the evid e evidence to be rendered by com complainant-department is primari rimarily documentar mentary and electronic. The same ( ame (further incarceration) would b ould be GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 13- -13 violative o ve of their rights under Article 2 ticle 21 of the Constitution of Indi f India, including r ding right to speedy trial and would, t ould, thus, also be against the princip rinciple of “Bail is ail is a general rule and incarcerat rceration is an exception” as held b held by Hon’ble S ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an h and another, 20 r, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 9. Resultantly, petitioners are are granted the concession of ba of bail subject to to their furnishing bail/surety bon ty bonds to the satisfaction of learne learned trial Cour Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. T ned. The petitioners shall abide by th by the following c wing conditions:- (i) The petitioners will surr ill surrender their passports and will n will not leave the country with without prior permission of the tri the trial Court. (ii) The petitioners will not ill not tamper with the evidence durin e during the trial. (iii) The petitioners will will not pressurize/ ate intimidate the th sses. prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioners will app ill appear before the trial Court on eac on each and every date fixed, u ixed, unless is exempted by a specif specific order of Court. (v) The petitioners shall not all not commit an offence similar to ar to the offence of which, they a they are accused, or for commission o ssion of which they are suspecte (vi) The petitioners shall n spected of. hall not directly or indirectly coerc coerce, induce, threaten or pro or promise to any person acquainte uainted with the facts of the cas the case so as to dissuade him/her fro er from disclosing such facts to cts to the Court or to any police offic e officer or tamper with the evide e evidence in any manner. vii) The petitioners shall n hall not in any manner misuse th heir liberty. (vii) The petitioners shall f shall furnish his address and mobi mobile number to the Trial Cou ial Court forthwith and shall not chang t change GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 14- -14 the same till the conclu conclusion of the trial and in case fo case for any reason, the petitio petitioners seek to change any of th of the aforesaid, the same s ame shall be done only with prio h prior intimation to the learne learned Trial Court, stating the reaso reason for the same. (viii) The trial Court/Duty M uty Magistrate may impose any oth y other condition, as deemed emed appropriate while releasing th ing the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made clea de clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty to erty to seek cancellation of bail as gran rder. as granted to petitioners by this Order. 11.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitio petitioners submits that petitioners ha have been falsel falsely implicated in the present case nt case. On 04.03.2025, CGST officia officials conducted ucted search at 10 locations of of the petitioners, seized variou various documents, ments, mobile phones, laptops etc., s etc., they were threatened to mak o make incriminatin minating statements and out of sheer f sheer fear, they suffered the statement tements. They were ere also summoned under Section ection 70 of the CGST Act. They du duly cooperated erated in the investigation, but were wrongfully arrested on 05.03.202 2025. Learned co ned counsel further submits that no at no ground of arrest or reasons sons to believe wer ve were supplied to the petitioners, wh , who are not a signatory, directors s or beneficiary ficiary in either of the said firms, thus, , thus, did not get any benefit out of th ut of the alleged bog ed bogus ITC in his account. The second leg of submissio mission raised by learned counsel fo nsel for petitioner ioners is that investigations qua the em are complete, challan has bee as been filed. Cons Considering their clean antecedents, a ents, as also the fact that completion o letion of trial would would take long time, the offences all ces allegedly committed by him (bein (being Magisterial terial triable) are punishable with im ith imprisonment which may extend xtend to GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 -4- maximum mum period of 05 years, lenient vie nt view deserves to be taken in th heir favour by a by allowing the present petition. In support of his submissions issions, learned counsel places relianc reliance on followi llowing judgments:- (i) Ganga Ram Vs. State State of Punjab, (2021 (44) GSTL 5 STL 5) of this Court. (ii) Ratnambar Kaushik shik Vs. Union of India, (2022) 022) 1 Centax 278 (SC) of Hon’ble S n’ble Supreme Court. (iii) Vishal Chauhan Vs. H ligence Vs. Haryana State GST (Intelligence Unit), Rohtak, ((2024) 21 Cen 21 Centax 434) of Punjab and Haryan aryana High Court. (iv) Ashutosh Garg Vs. Un entax s. Union of India, ((2024) 20 Centax 595 (SC)). (v) Sandeep Singhal Vs. D Vs. DGGSTI, ((2024) 16 Centax 443 ax 443) of Rajasthan High Court. (vi) Manish Kumar Vs. D Vs. Directorate General, Goods an ds and Services Tax Intelligence (2025- ence Zonal unit, Ludhiana, (2025 GST). TIOL-1233-HC-P&H-GST) (vii) Manoj Gupta Vs. U Vs. Union of India and others, i ers, in CRM-M No.20320 of 202 f 2025 of this Court, decided o ded on 10.07.2025. 5. While opposing the petition, d tion, detailed reply has been filed by th by the respondent ndent-department reiterating that peti at petitioners are the mastermind of th d of the entire netw e network i.e. the activity of creating b ating bogus firms under GST, Ludhian udhiana for the gene e generating fake invoices, passing fra ing fraudulent Input Tax Credit withou without actual supp l supply of goods causing huge loss e loss of over Rs.160.58 crores to th s to the State Exch Exchequer. Learned counsel furth l further submits that entire searc search proceeding eedings were conducted in the presenc resence of two independent witnesses esses in accordance rdance with law, thus no question of an n of any threat, coercion or intimidatio idation GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 -5- against the st the petitioners arises and petitioner itioners themselves voluntarily admitte dmitted regarding ding their role in operating various various bogus firms, purchasing the ng their credentials, ntials, issuing fake invoices and p and passing fraudulent ITC. Furth Further investigatio tigation reveals that all the major su ajor suppliers of bogus taxpayer firm er firms were found found to be non-existent and petiti petitioners themselves. The evidenc vidence collected d cted during the course of investigation igations, statements recorded of variou various concerned p erned persons, have also been referred ferred to in the reply. Learned counsel for Responde pondent-department has also referred t erred to judgments ments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as a rt, as also that of the other High Court Courts, in support pport of his stand that petitioners, at w , at whose instance these transaction sactions of goods- -less invoices occurred/created d ated do not deserve the concession o ssion of bail, for if t for if the relief sought for is extended tended, there is every likelihood of the their (petitioner tioners) indulging in same offence, fl nce, fleeing from the process of justic f justice by not appe ot appearing in the Court and to tampe tamper with the evidence. Dismissal o issal of the petition etition has been prayed for. Learned counsel for the res he respondent-department has place placed reliance on nce on the following judgments:- 1) 2) 3) SFIO Vs. Nitin Johar Johari and another, in Crl. Appe Appeal No.1381/2019 dated 1 ted 12.09.2019 of Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court. Narain Popli Vs. CB s. CBI, (AIR 2003 SCC 3257) of Hon’ble Supreme Court Court. P.V. Ramana Reddy eddy Vs. Union of India in Wr n Writ Petition No.4764 of 201 of 2019 of Telangana High Court. 4) Shailesh Rajpal Vs. Co Vs. Commissioner, (2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 336) of Madhy Madhya Pradesh High Court. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 -6- 6. I have the learned counsel fo nsel for the parties and with their ab eir able assistance a tance also gone through the material av erial available on record. 7. Before expressing any opin opinion on the merits of the riv he rival contentions ntions raised by both the learned cou ed counsel, it would be appropriate riate to carefully go ully go through Section 132 CGST Ac ST Act, which reads as under: - “132. Punishment for certain rtain offences.— (1) Whoever commits an any of the following offence ences, namely:— (a) supplies any goods or or services or both without issue sue of any invoice, in violation of t of the provisions of this Act or th or the rules made thereunder, with th ith the intention to evade tax; (b) issues any invoice or or bill without supply of goods o ds or services or both in violation o on of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder lead leading to wrongful availment o nt or utilisation of input tax credit o dit or refund of tax; (c) avails input tax credit u dit using such invoice or bill referre ferred to in clause (b); shall be punishable–– (i) in cases where t re the amount of tax evaded or th or the amount of input tax cre credit wrongly availed or utilized zed or the amount of refund wr d wrongly taken exceeds five hundre ndred lakh rupees, with impr imprisonment for a term which ma h may extend to five year and w and with fine. (ii) in cases where t re the amount of tax evaded or th or the amount of input tax cre credit wrongly availed or utilized zed or the amount of refun efund wrongly taken exceeds tw s two hundred lakh rupees b es but does not exceed five hundre ndred lakh rupees, with impr imprisonment for a term which ma h may extend to three years an s and with fine; (iii) in the case of any f any other offence where the amou mount of tax evaded or the am e amount of input tax credit wrong rongly availed or utilised or th r the amount of refund wrongly take taken GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 -7- exceeds one hundred lak d lakh rupees but does not exceed tw ed two hundred lakh rupees, wi s, with imprisonment for a term whic which may extend to one year ear and with fine;” A bare perusal of the aforesai foresaid provision leaves no doubt th ubt that the offence ffences alleged to have been committe mmitted by the petitioner are punishab nishable with impri imprisonment for a term which ma ch may extend to 05 years and fin nd fine, meaning th thereby that the maximum terms o erms of imprisonment is 05 years. Economic offences by their their very nature pose threat to th t to the State’s fina financial stability and deserve to be e to be dealt with sternly. Question th tion that arises is as as to what criteria/factors/circum circumstances need to be kept in min in mind while deali e dealing with the petition for grant o rant of bail in such economic offence ffences. At this stag is stage, it would be most appropria ropriate to refer to recent judgment o ment of Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court in “Vineet Jain Jain Vs. Union of India (Crimin iminal Appeal No l No.2269 of 2025 (arising out o ut of SLP(Crl.) No.4349 of 202 2025), wherein wh ein while discussing the current state t state of affairs with regard to grant o grant of bail arising rising out of CGST cases, it was held s held as under:- “The offences alleged against ainst the appellant are under Claus lauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 1 n 132(1) of the Central Goods an s and Services Tax Act, 2017. The The maximum sentence is of 5 yea years with fine. A charge-sheet ha t has been filed. The appellant is t is in custody for a period of almos lmost 7 months. The case is triable b ble by a Court of a Judicial Magistra istrate. The sentence is limited and and in any case, the prosecution is is based on documentary evidenc dence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that that in a case like this, the appella ellant has been denied the benefit o fit of bail at all levels, including th ng the High Court and ultimately, ely, he was forced to approach th h this Court. These are the cases ses where in normal course, befor before the Trial Courts, the accused used should get bail unless there ar re are some extra ordinary circumst mstances.” GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 -8- Appropriate here would also b also be to refer to judgment of Hon’bl on’ble Supreme C eme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CB . CBI, (2012(1) SCC 40), wherein th rein the Sessions C ions Court and the High Court had de ad declined the bail applications of th s of the accused, w who had been alleged of commit ommitting forgery and cheating, on th , on the ground that nd that the offences are serious, involv involved deep rooted planning and hug nd huge loss had be had been caused to the Exchequer, as uer, as also that if allowed the relief o relief of bail the po the possibility of accused tampering ring with the evidence could not b not be ruled out. out. In that context, Hon’ble Supreme preme Court held as under:- “43. When the undertrial pris prisoners are detained in jail custod ustody to an indefinite period, Ar Article 21 of the Constitution ion is violated. Every person, deta detained or arrested, is entitled led to speedy trial, the question is: w is: whether the same is possible in th in the present case. There are seven eventeen accused persons. Stateme tement of the witnesses runs to s to several hundred pages and th d the documents on which reliance ance is placed by the prosecution, ion, is voluminous. The trial may tak y take considerable time and it loo looks to us that the appellants, who who are in jail, have to remain in ja in jail longer than the period of dete detention, had they been convicted. ted. It is not in the interest of justic justice that accused should be in ja in jail for an indefinite period. No d No doubt, the offence alleged again gainst the appellants is a serious one one in terms of alleged huge loss loss to the State exchequer, that, by by itself, should not deter us fro s from enlarging the appellants on s on bail when there is no seriou erious contention of the respondent dent that the accused, if released o sed on bail, would interfere with th h the trial or tamper with evidenc dence. We do not see any good r d reason to detain the accused sed in custody, that too, after the co e completion of the investigation an n and filing of the charge-sheet. 44. This Court, in the cas case of State of Kerala v. Ranee aneef, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) al) 381 : 2011(1) Recent Ape Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 116 : (201 (2011)1 SCC 784, has stated :- GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--33635-2025 -9- "15. In deciding bail a ail applications an important facto factor which should certainly b inly be taken into consideration by th by the court is the delay in con concluding the trial. Often this tak takes several years, and if th if the accused is denied bail but but is ultimately acquitted, wh d, who will restore so many years ars of his life spent in custody? tody? Is Article 21 of the Constitutio tution, which is the most basic asic of all the fundamental rights hts in our Constitution, not vi ot violated in such a case? Of cour course this is not the only fac factor, but it is certainly one of th of the important factors in de n deciding whether to grant bail. ail. In the present case the r he respondent has already spent 6 nt 66 days in custody (as st s stated in Para 2 of his counte unter- affidavit), and we see no ee no reason why he should be denie denied bail. A doctor incarcera rcerated for a long period may end u nd up like Dr. Manette in Cha Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Tw f Two Cities, who forgot his his profession and even his name me in the Bastille. xxx xxx xxx 39. Coming back to t to the facts of the present case, bo , both the Courts have refused fused the request for grant of bail o ail on two grounds :- The p he primary ground is that offenc ffence alleged against the a e accused persons is very seriou erious involving deep rooted p ted planning in which, huge financi ancial loss is caused to the S the State exchequer ; the seconda ndary ground is that the po possibility of the accused person ersons tempering with the wit witnesses. In the present case, th e, the charge is that of che cheating and dishonestly inducin ucing delivery of property, fo forgery for the purpose of cheatin eating using as genuine a forg forged document. The punishment ent of the offence is punishme hment for a term which may extend nd to seven years. It is, no d no doubt, true that the nature of th of the charge may be releva elevant, but at the same time, th e, the punishment to which the the party may be liable, if convicte victed, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determinin ining GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--33635-2025 10- -10 whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charg harge and the severity of the the punishment should be taken in n into consideration. 40. The grant or ref r refusal to grant bail lies within th in the discretion of the Cou Court . The grant or denial ial is regulated, to a large extent, by larg the facts an and circumstances of each ach particular case. But at the sam same time, right to bail is no is not to be denied merely because o use of the sentiments of the c the community against the accuse cused. The primary purposes oses of bail in a criminal case are are to relieve the accused of im of imprisonment, to relieve the Sta e State of the burden of keepin eeping him, pending the trial, and and at the same time, to keep eep the accused constructively in th in the custody of the Cour Court , whether before or afte after conviction, to assure sure that he will submit to th o the jurisdiction of the Cou Court and be in attendance thereo ereon whenever his presence nce is required. 41. This Court in Gu n Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. Stat State, AIR 1978 Supreme e Court 179 observed that tw t two paramount consideratio rations, while considering petition fo on for grant of bail in non on-bailable offence, apart from th m the seriousness of the off offence, are the likelihood of th of the accused fleeing from ju m justice and his tampering with th ith the prosecution witnesses. ses. Both of them relate to ensure ure of the fair trial of the cas case. Though, this aspect is dealt b alt by the High Court in its i its impugned order, in our view, th w, the ing. same is not convincing. xxx xxx xxx 46. We are conscious cious of the fact that the accused a ed are charged with economic omic offences of huge magnitude. W e. We are also conscious of th of the fact that the offences alleged, ged, if proved, may jeopardise rdise the economy of the country. A try. At the same time, we cann cannot lose sight of the fact that th at the investigating agency ha y has already completed investigatio gation GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33635-2025 11- -11 and the charge sheet is et is already filed before the Speci pecial Judge, CBI, New Delhi elhi. Therefore, their presence in th in the custody may not be ne e necessary for further investigatio ation.
Decision
In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed trued as an opinion on the merits of the of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2025 03.12.2025 gbs (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) NEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document