← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/6958/2023allowed

Lalit Jain v. State Of Haryana

2023-07-28Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill3 pages

2023:PHHC:097011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.07.2023 LALIT JAIN @ LALIT KUMAR BABULAL TATER ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. BNS Marok, Advocate and Mr.Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.251 dated 26.07.2021, registered under Sections 420 IPC; Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000; Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 and 34 IPC and Sections 66-C and 85 of the Information technology Act, 2000 (added later on), at Police Station Sector-31, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in nutshell are that Krishan Dutt Vashisht, AGM Legal, Shahi Exports Private Limited Faridabad lodged a complaint to the Police wherein he alleged that Shahi Exports Private Limited is a garment manufacturer and exporter and for the purpose of promotion of export business, Government of India offered incentive scheme, namely, "Rebate of State & Central Taxes and Levies" (in short, RoSCTL) whereby certain

-2percentage  

                              

             



    !

   "     



  

#            

#  

$%!& $'()*         +,*''+'+   

- #! "       

     

     #        

                  

   '.+''+''   %         

  "$            /      '.+''+''      

 ! 0  

 *! 1        

  /           #    

- #! "  /  2  

- 3  #   $ $   %     

     

 &  %              

 %0 



   

 +(*+'+''                       



-3-  Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. She, however, submits that the licenses, which were originally belonging to the complainant-Company, were found in the devices of the petitioner and the said devices were confiscated and that the matter in question involves a huge amount of more than Rs.20 crore. She further submits that the petitioner is facing three more tax fraud cases and is a habitual offender.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 23.02.2022. Coaccused have already been enlarged on bail. As per the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, there was no financial loss that had occurred, at any stage. Prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, is made absolute, subject to furnishing of fresh bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 28.07.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No