Bail granted in fictitious entity investigation as petitioner was in custody for more than a year

Kashmir Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court)

Facts- The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner claims to be the Director of the company named M/s. Madhusmita Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. which is a fictitious entity.

The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2020. P.R. was submitted on 09.10.2020 keeping the investigation open. From the report filed by the prosecution on 02.07.2021, it is seen that further investigation is still in progress. The question is, can this be a ground to deny bail to the accused indefinitely.

Conclusion- It should be kept in mind that the offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)&(i) of the CGST Act are punishable with a maximum punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Therefore, investigation ought to be completed within 60 days as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. Of course, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. permits the investigating agency to keep the investigation open. But the same, if not concluded for an indefinite period, cannot obviously be cited as a ground to detain the accused in custody. As is seen, the initial prosecution report was filed way back on 09.10.2020 and till date further investigation is said to be in progress. Thus, more than a year has elapsed from the date of submission of initial P.R.. This cannot be a ground to detain the accused in custody indefinitely.
In result, the application for bail is allowed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.