Sumit Kumar And Anr. vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court decided to grant bail to the petitioners. The reasoning was based on the specific allegations made in the FIR and the submissions presented by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Court considered that the petitioners are partners and employees of a transport company that provided vehicles on hire, and that the seized coal did not belong to them. The Court also took into account the submission that the penal provisions under Section 31 of the GST Act are bailable and non-cognizable. Consequently, the Court found that further custodial detention of the petitioners was not necessary for the purpose of investigation. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioners on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one suitable surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M).

Facts

The petitioners, Sumit Kumar and Abhijit Dev Nath, are seeking bail in connection with Basistha PS Case No. 1224/2018. The FIR was lodged by a police SI who found trucks carrying coal. The documents produced by the truck operators were deemed suspicious, leading to a suspicion that coal was transported in Assam evading taxes. The petitioners claim to be a partner and an employee of a transport company that provided vehicles on hire. They assert that the seized coal did not belong to them and they were merely involved in providing transportation services. They also point out that the penal provisions under Section 31 of the GST Act are bailable and non-cognizable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.PC in connection with Basistha PS Case No. 1224/2018, which involves allegations of tax evasion under the GST Act and other Indian Penal Code sections (120B/379/420/468/471 IPC)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contend that they are merely partners and employees of a transport company that provided vehicles for hire. They argue that the seized coal does not belong to them and they have no connection with the alleged tax evasion. Furthermore, they submit that the penal provisions under Section 31 of the GST Act are bailable and non-cognizable, suggesting a less severe nature of the offense concerning tax evasion. Revenue/State's arguments: The State respondent was represented by the learned Addl. P.P., but the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State regarding the bail application or the merits of the case.