Man Spends 4+ Yrs In Jail Without Trial For Offence With Max 5 Yrs Sentence, P&H High Court Laments ₹1 Crore Bond Condition For Default Bail

Observing that the case shows "distressing picture of the criminal justice system's failure", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside condition to pay Rs.1.10 crore in bail bond for granting default bail to an accused in Tax Fraud case.

The Court noted that the accused has been in custody for the past 4 years, 01 month and 20 days, while the maximum sentence for the alleged offences is 5 years.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar while directing to release him on furnishing Rs.50,000 said, "What pricks the conscience of this Court is that in spite of the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 2022 and the petitioner has been incarcerated since the last 04 years and the trial is yet to commence. Moreover, the conditions imposed upon the petitioner to avail the concession of bail are lamentably disproportional."

The judge added that it "would be remiss, if it does not address the serious issue of non-compliance of the directions issued in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (supra). Let the matter be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action as he may deem necessary in order to ensure scrupulous compliance thereof."

It further said that 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."

As per the proviso to Section 479 of BNSS, the petitioner should have been released since he has already undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period prescribed for that offence.

The Court was hearing a plea under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the petition praying for relaxation of conditions prescribed for grant of default bail, imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed.

The petitioner was accused in a complaint under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017  read with the corresponding provisions of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('IGST Act').

According to the complaint, co-accused was the principal orchestrator of a fraudulent scheme involving fake transactions. He allegedly created 14 firms in the names of his family members and close associates, designating them as proprietors or partners. He allegedly unlawfully availed ineligible input tax credit and further passed on fraudulent input tax credits to purchasers based on these fabricated invoices amounting to ₹17.65 crores.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with the case in 2021. However, the prosecution failed to complete the investigation and to file the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. within the statutory period of 60 days.

Consequently, petitioner Pawan Kumar moved an application under Section 167(2) of CrPC seeking default bail. The plea was allowed and he was accordingly granted bail vide order dated 15.03.2021 subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.10 crore.

After examining the submissions, the Court highlighted the Supreme Court ruling in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail wherein it issued the guidelines on the issue of undertrial prisoners who continue to be in custody despite having been granted the benefit of bail on account of their inability to fulfill the conditions stipulated in the bail order or otherwise. 

Adverting to the matter at hand, the Court noted that it appears that, in violation of the Supreme Courtdirections, "the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) has made no efforts to assist the petitioner in securing his release. Nothing available on the record indicates whether the DLSA even had the knowledge qua the circumstances of the petitioner, to say nothing of preparation of the socio-economic report with a subsequent request to relax the conditions imposed."

"The petitioner has been condemned unheard, languishing in custody for over four years without even framing of charges. This is a stark negation of his fundamental right to a fair trial. This inaction has effectively converted pre-trial detention into a punitive sentence, disregarding the bedrock principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty," it added.

Justice Brar observed that the petitioner was unjustly incarcerated for over 04 years, while the maximum sentence for the offences allegedly committed by him is 05 years. As such, not only the petitioner did accrue the right to be released on default bail as elucidated under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but also the right to be released under Section 479 of the BNSS.

While noting that in the present case, onerous conditions such as furnishing surety bonds of Rs.1.10 crore from each of the two sureties as well as a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.55.00 lakhs have been imposed as a pre-requisite for grant of bail, it opined that such an approach is "antithetical to the principles of justice and fairness."

Distressing Picture Of Criminal Justice System's Failure

The Court said that 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.

It further said that 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. Having already spent over four years in custody, his right to release under Section 479 of BNSS was not merely an entitlement but a legal mandate.

"Despite this, the failure of the authorities to ensure his release underscores a fundamental violation of due process. The duty cast upon the Superintendent of Jail under sub-section (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 added.

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and directed petitioner Pawan Kumar to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000.

Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Samridhi Jain, Advocate and Mr. Akash Khurana, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: Pawan Kumar v. Inspector (Preventive), Central Goods and Services Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 110

Click here to read/download the order