Sandeep Kumar And Anr Vs State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Sandeep Kumar’s petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of forged invoices, transactions through nonexistent firms and failure to deposit GST collected from a purchaser. The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from FIR No.177 dated 15.07.2026, registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Division No.6, District Ludhiana. The two petitioners were brothers working as brokers or mediators in the trading of iron goods. Their joint anticipatory bail application had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 03.08.2026. Petitioner No.2 was arrested during the pendency of the High Court petition, rendering the petition infructuous qua him.
The complainant, Lovely Kalra, manufactured cycle and auto parts under the name M/s B.S. & Sons. He alleged that the petitioners, acting in conspiracy with five other accused who were described as proprietors of different firms, induced him to purchase H.B. wires, M.S. bar and other goods at reasonable rates. He purchased goods against invoices and made payments to the bank accounts identified by the petitioners. Following a notice under Section 70 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, received in July 2024, he allegedly discovered that forged and fabricated bills had been prepared and that CGST and SGST collected from him had not been deposited. He also learnt of an earlier FIR No.144 dated 04.07.2024 against the petitioners concerning cheating and forgery. According to the complaint, he was asked to deposit Rs.20 lakhs in tax, and the petitioners refused his request to reimburse that amount with interest.
Sandeep Kumar’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the subsequent FIR amounted to double jeopardy because FIR No.144 already concerned similar allegations. Counsel submitted that Sandeep Kumar had been arrested in the earlier case on 04.07.2024 and granted bail, while petitioner No.2 had been exonerated in that case, in which a challan had also been presented. It was further argued that the ingredients of cheating were absent, no recovery remained to be effected, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and Sandeep Kumar was willing to join the investigation.
The State, assisted by the complainant’s counsel, opposed bail on the ground that the allegations were specific and serious. It submitted that invoices had been issued by the petitioners in the names of nonexistent firms, and that the complainant had paid money into those firms’ accounts without knowing their ownership. The State referred to an alleged withdrawal of Rs.18 lakhs by petitioner No.2 from the account of fictitious firm M/s Shiv Enterprises on 09.11.2023. It also alleged that Sandeep Kumar had withdrawn money from the account of M/s Raj Enterprises, another nonexistent firm. The State maintained that the transactions caused wrongful loss of Rs.20 lakhs to the complainant, did not constitute double jeopardy, and required custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation.
The Court found that the grave and serious allegations prima facie established Sandeep Kumar’s complicity for the purpose of deciding the bail petition. It emphasised that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that denying custodial interrogation could leave gaps and loopholes adversely affecting the investigation. In particular, interrogation was considered necessary to obtain information about how the alleged offences were committed and to procure records connecting Sandeep Kumar with Raj Enterprises. Applying its stated approach that pre-arrest bail required exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and caution having regard to the accusation and possible sentence, the Court found no such circumstances in the petitioner’s pleas and dismissed the petition. It expressly clarified that its observations were not an opinion on the merits and would not influence the trial. Any pending application was rendered infructuous.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.177 dated 15.07.2026 registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Division No.6, District Ludhiana
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant-Lovely Kalra, alleging therein that he was running the business of manufacturing of cycle and auto parts under the name and style of M/s B.S. & Sons. The petitioners, who are real brothers, had been working as brokers/mediators for trading of iron goods. By hatching conspiracy with each other, they allured the complainant to purchase H.B. wires, M.S. bar, etc. at reasonable rates from the accused Ashwani Kumar, Karan, Anurag Tiwari, Vikram Singh, and Varinder Kumar, who were proprietors of different firms. By falling into the trap of the petitioners, the complainant had purchased goods vide different invoices from the abovenamed accused and payment was made on the account numbers as provided by the present petitioners. The complainant, however, received a notice under Section 70 of Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘PGST Act’) from the office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Jalandhar, in July 2024. On reaching the office of the Assistant Commissioner, he came to know that the petitioners, in connivance with the above-named five accused, had prepared forged and fabricated bills and had not deposited the CGST and SGST on account of supply of goods to the complainant in order to evade payment of tax, though the said amount had been taken from the complainant. He also came to know that a case bearing FIR No. 144 dated 04.07.2024 had been registered against the petitioners at Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana, for committing offences of cheating and forgery. The complainant contacted the petitioners as he was asked to deposit tax amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. He requested the petitioners to reimburse the aforementioned amount along with interest as it stood paid by him, but the petitioners flatly refused to do so and rather proclaimed that they had hatched conspiracy to get tax liability imposed upon the complainant to cheat and defraud him. As such, he prayed for taking action in the matter.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners jointly moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 03.08.2026. Petitioner No. 2 has been arrested during the pendency of this petition and as such the petition qua him has been rendered infructuous.
4. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for petitioner No.1- Sandeep Kumar that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A case bearing FIR No. 144 dated 04.07.2024 has been registered against the petitioners. The petitioner No.1-Sandeep Kumar was arrested in the said case on 04.07.2024 and had been extended benefit of bail, whereas petitioner No.2, though arraigned as accused at the initial stages, had been exonerated. Challan has also been presented in that case. The FIR of this case has been lodged against the petitioner No.1 as double jeopardy since on the similar allegations, FIR No.144 stands registered against him. The ingredients for commission of offence of cheating are not attracted against him at all. His custodial interrogation is not required in this case, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already been granted regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 144. He is ready to join investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended benefit of prearrest bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that the allegations against the petitioner No.1 Sandeep Kumar are specific and serious in nature as he, along with the coaccused, had hatched a conspiracy and had induced the complainant to purchase goods through their brokership and had made the complainant pay for those goods in the account of some firms, qua ownership of which the complainant, had no knowledge. Those firms did not make payment of GST with the concerned department even after receiving the money from the complainant. It has also been revealed that the invoices were issued by the present petitioners in the name of those firms which were, in fact, nonexistent. The complicity of the petitioner No.1 in the commission of subject offences stands prima facie established. It has also been revealed that an amount of Rs. 18 lakhs was withdrawn by petitioner No.2 from the account of firm M/s Shiv Enterprises on 09.11.2023, and the said firm was, in fact, fictitious. Similarly, petitioner No.1 had also withdrawn money from the account of another firm, M/s Raj Enterprises, which is also found to be nonexistent. The allegations make out a case of preparing forged bills of nonexistent firms and supplying material to the complainant on the basis of the same and thereby receiving GST amount from the complainant, but not depositing the same. The complainant was caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of act and conduct of the petitioners. It cannot be stated to be a case of double jeopardy. For the purpose of thorough and proper investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner No.1 is required. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7.The petitioner No.1, along with the petitioner No.2 and other co-accused, is alleged to have induced the complainant to purchase goods from different firms through their broker ship and to make payment in the bank accounts of firms that have been found to be non-existent. Forged and fabricated invoices were allegedly prepared with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs to the complainant by saddling him with undue tax liability, while evading deposit of the collected tax with the department. The allegations leveled against the petitioner No.1 are grave and serious in nature, prima facie establishing his complicity in the commission of the subject offences. The case is at its nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner No.1 is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre-arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with great caution while taking into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extraordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas as taken by the petitioner. For the purpose of eliciting information as to the manner in which the subject offences had been committed by the petitioner No.1, to procure record to show connection between the firm Raj Enterprises and petitioner No.1, the custodial interrogation of petitioner No.1 is must. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
