Smti Trishna Barman vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, being a lady, is entitled to the privilege of bail, provided strict conditions are imposed to ensure her participation in the investigation process. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, including the petitioner's argument regarding the documentary and electronic nature of evidence and the period of custody, as well as the respondent's contention about ongoing further investigation. The Court was of the considered opinion that bail could be granted with appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 75,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kamrup (Metro). The CJM was granted liberty to impose necessary conditions to ensure the petitioner's continued participation and cooperation with the investigation. A specific condition was imposed that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating Authority or the CJM Kamrup (Metro) without prior written permission.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Smt. Trishna Barman, who was arrested on July 20, 2026, in connection with Case No. CT/GIE/ARST/2026/09 under Section 132(5) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody for over 33 days. The investigation relies on documentary and electronic evidence. The petitioner contends that her release on bail, with appropriate conditions, would not impede the investigation, and she undertakes to cooperate fully. The respondent, Union of India, represented by the Director General of GST Intelligence, argued against granting bail at this stage, citing ongoing further investigation based on the petitioner's interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Smt. Trishna Barman, is entitled to be released on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, considering the nature of evidence and the period of custody? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the evidence is documentary and electronic, and she has already been in custody for over 33 days. She submitted that her release on bail, subject to strict conditions, would not prejudice the investigation, and she is willing to cooperate fully. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court's decision in Venney Jan Vs. Union of India, which granted bail to an appellant in custody for nearly 7 months where the case was trialable by a Judicial Magistrate, the sentence was limited to 5 years, the prosecution relied on documentary evidence, and there were no antecedents. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent argued that further investigation has been carried out based on the petitioner's interrogation, and therefore, she should not be released on bail at this juncture of the investigation.