Santosh Kumar Sahay And Ors vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court was inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the report received from the Investigating Officer, which confirmed that the rate of GST is the same for both inter-state and intra-state transactions. Crucially, the report indicated that if IGST has been paid, then coal can be transported to another State. This finding, supported by the Project Officer's report, suggests that the petitioners' actions, in light of the tax paid, were not in violation of the law concerning inter-state transportation. The Court directed the petitioners to surrender in the court below within four weeks and, upon their arrest or surrender, to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioners, Santosh Kumar Sahay, Sitaram Prasad, and Dipak Mali, are apprehending arrest in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No. 86/17, registered under Sections 379, 411 of the IPC and Sections 8(3) JTTR, 4 and 21 MMDR and 6 JMDR Rule. The case involves the alleged illegal transportation of coal. An earlier order directed the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to verify a report from the Project Officer, which indicated that the petitioners had already paid IGST. The I.O. submitted a report confirming that the GST rate is the same for inter-state and intra-state transactions and that coal can be transported to another state if IGST has been paid. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given that IGST has been paid, which, according to the I.O.'s report, permits inter-state transportation of coal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that since IGST has been paid, and the GST rate is uniform for inter-state and intra-state transactions, their actions should not be considered illegal, making them eligible for anticipatory bail. They relied on the report of the Project Officer and the subsequent verification by the I.O. which supported this premise. State's Contention: The State did not present any specific arguments against the grant of anticipatory bail in the provided judgment text. The State was represented by an A.P.P., but their submissions are not detailed.