Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties and perused the case diary. It acknowledged that the petitioner is the caretaker of the firms and managed their affairs, which allegedly availed input tax credit through fraudulent means and forged invoices, causing a loss of Rs. 21,06,63,524/-. The Court noted the petitioner's period of detention since June 15, 2026, and that some co-accused have already been granted bail. Balancing the period of detention against the nature and gravity of the alleged offense, the Court was of the view that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be warranted for the interest of the investigation. Consequently, the Court ordered the enlargement of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety of like amount.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Ajay Kumar Yadav, who has been in custody since June 15, 2026, in connection with Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026. The FIR, lodged on May 23, 2026, by an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, alleges fraudulent activities in violation of the Assam GST Act and various sections of the BNS. The allegations pertain to the creation and operation of fictitious business entities, namely M/s Assam Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumex, and M/s Aida Bitumex, for wrongful availment and false claiming of tax invoices using non-existent taxpayers and the accused's firms. The petitioner claims to be a caretaker with no involvement in the alleged offenses, while the State contends he supervised the firms which fraudulently availed input tax credit amounting to Rs. 7,33,61,984/-, causing detriment to the national economy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Ajay Kumar Yadav, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in connection with Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026, registered for alleged violations of the Assam GST Act and various sections of the BNS? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the accused is merely a caretaker of the firms and not involved in the alleged offenses. He highlighted that the case involves verification of electronic records already seized by the investigating officer. The petitioner has been in custody since June 15, 2026, is ready to cooperate with the investigation, and a co-accused has already been granted bail. Therefore, the petition should be allowed. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the petitioner, as the caretaker, was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the firms which fraudulently availed input tax credit amounting to Rs. 7,33,61,984/- through forged invoices, causing significant loss to the national economy. The State also submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and urged for the dismissal of the petition.