Sri Vineet Kumar Poddar Alias Vineet Poddar vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. The Court found that the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused, and the investigation into his involvement was ongoing. Granting bail at this juncture would prejudice the investigating agency. The Court emphasized the serious nature of the offense, involving a huge amount of money, and deemed further custodial detention necessary to unearth the conspiracy angle and the role of co-accused. The Court concluded that, based on the facts and circumstances on record and the case diary, it was not the proper stage to grant the privilege of bail to the accused. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Vineet Kumar Poddar, sought bail in connection with Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026, registered under various sections of the BNS. The FIR, lodged by an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, alleged fraudulent activities in violation of the Assam GST Act and BNS. The allegations include the creation and operation of fictitious business entities for wrongful availment and false claiming of tax invoices in the names of non-existent taxpayers and the accused's firms: M/s Assam Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumen, and M/s Aida Bitumex. The petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2026, remanded to police custody, and subsequently to judicial custody on 11.08.2026. The case involves documents and electronic records which have been collected by the Investigating Officer (I.O.).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026, considering the allegations of fraudulent activities under the Assam GST Act and BNS? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was initially an employee in the bitumen business and later received commissions from M/s Aida Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumen, and M/s Aida Bitumex based on sales generated by him. He argued that he is neither a proprietor, partner, director, shareholder, authorized signatory, beneficial owner, nor responsible for the business's conduct, and has no financial interest. He also stated that some co-accused have been granted bail and that he is innocent and ready to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner, along with Shahbaz Haider and Rajesh Kumar @ Pintu Sharma, jointly controlled and operated M/s Aida Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumen, and M/s Assam Bitumix since 2021, despite the firms being registered in different names. They allegedly divided profits equally. The proprietors of M/s Barrel Bitumen and M/s Assam Bitumix allegedly allowed the use of their firms for a monthly commission, indicating the firms were not independently managed. The petitioner was allegedly responsible for preparing and arranging purchase and sale bills through their CA and had active participation and financial interest, receiving 10% to 20% of profits. The State further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and involves availing input tax credit of a huge amount through fraudulent means and forged invoices, which is detrimental to the national economy.