Distressing Picture Of Criminal Justice System: Punjab And Haryana High Court Quashes ₹1cr Bail Bond Condition On Accused Languishing In Jail Despite Exceeding Maximum Sentence
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a Petition of the accused under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the Trial Court’s Order by which the Petition praying for relaxation of conditions prescribed for the grant of default bail imposed on him, was dismissed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a bail bond condition of Rs. 1.10 crores imposed on an accused who was languishing in jail even after exceeding one-third of the maximum prescribed sentence for the alleged offence.
The Court was deciding a Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of the Trial Court’s Order by which the Petition praying for relaxation of conditions prescribed for grant of default bail imposed on him, was dismissed.
A Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar remarked, “The facts of the present case paint a distressing picture of the criminal justice system's failure to uphold the rights of undertrial prisoners. The petitioner, despite being entitled to default bail continued to languish in custody due to the imposition of excessively stringent conditions. However, what makes this case even more egregious is the fact that the petitioner was not released under Section 479 of BNSS despite having undergone detention exceeding one-third of the maximum prescribed sentence for the alleged offence.”
The Bench added that having already spent over four years in custody, the accused’s right to release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was not merely an entitlement but a legal mandate and despite this, the failure of the authorities to ensure his release underscores a fundamental violation of due process.
Advocate Anoop Verma appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Standing Counsel (SSC) Sourabh Goel appeared for the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Petitioner was implicated as an accused in a Complaint under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with the corresponding provisions of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (PGST Act), and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). According to the allegations in the Complaint, co-accused was the principal orchestrator of a fraudulent scheme involving fake transactions and he allegedly created 14 firms in the names of his family members and close associates, designating them as proprietors or partners. By generating fictitious invoices, he alleged to have unlawfully availed ineligible input tax credit (ITC) and further passed on fraudulent ITCs to purchasers based on these fabricated invoices amounting to Rs. 17.65 crores.
Resultantly, the Petitioner was arrested, however, the prosecution failed to complete the investigation and to file a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC withing the statutory period of 60 days. Consequently, the Petitioner moved an Application under Section 167(2) CrPC seeking default bail and the same was allowed. He was granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount among other conditions. The accused challenged these conditions through multiple Petitions, which were dismissed by various Courts, including the High Court and the Supreme Court. His attempts to modify the bail conditions were unsuccessful, with the latest dismissal dated February 23, 2024. Hence, he was again before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after going through the facts of the case, observed, “The duty cast upon the Superintendent of Jail under subsection (3) of Section 479 of BNSS to inform the Court of an undertrial’s eligibility for bail was either overlooked or ignored, resulting in the continued incarceration of the petitioner in clear contravention of the law.”
The Court reiterated that Section 479 of BNSS applies retrospectively to all undertrial prisoners, irrespective of whether their case was registered before the enactment of the BNSS.
“The failure to release the petitioner under Section 479 BNSS, when his right to default bail itself was an indefeasible statutory and constitutional right, reflects a glaring miscarriage of justice. The right to liberty cannot be rendered illusory by administrative inaction or judicial indifference”, it also said.
Furthermore, the Court noted that this case highlights the urgent need for strict adherence to statutory safeguards meant to prevent arbitrary detention, lest the criminal justice system becomes complicit in perpetuating prolonged and unjustified incarceration.
“… this Court has no hesitation in holding that the conditions imposed by learned trial Court for grant of default bail do not meet the objective standards of reason and justice”, it held.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition, ordered the release of the accused on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, and put the case before the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action to ensure scrupulous compliance thereof.
Cause Title- Pawan Kumar v. Inspector (Preventive), Central Goods and Services Tax (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:032260)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anoop Verma
Respondent: SSC Sourabh Goel, Advocates Samridhi Jain, and Akash Khurana.
