Shri Jitendra Shaw vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court decided to grant bail to the accused, Jitendra Shaw. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and perused the petition, documents, and case diary. It noted that the firm was registered in the accused's name, and he received Rs. 5,000/- from Manoj Shaw, who operated the firm. The accused has no business of bitumen, and his and his brother's PAN and Aadhaar cards were collected by Manoj Shaw, along with OTPs from his mobile. The Court acknowledged the accused's detention since June 15, 2026, and that some co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Balancing the period of detention with the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the Court concluded that further custodial detention might not be warranted in the interest of the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that prolonged detention may not be necessary when the accused has undergone a significant period of incarceration and co-accused have been granted bail, especially when the investigation is ongoing and the accused is willing to cooperate. The operative direction is to enlarge the accused on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Jitendra Shaw, the accused, who has been in jail since June 15, 2026, in connection with Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026. The case was registered based on an FIR lodged by an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax on May 23, 2026. The FIR alleges fraudulent activities in violation of the Assam GST Act and various sections of the BNS, involving the creation of fictitious business entities and wrongful availment of tax invoices in the names of non-existent taxpayers and the accused's firms: M/s Assam Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumex, and M/s Aida Bitumex. The dispute involves an alleged input tax credit of Rs. 7,21,22,244/- obtained through fraudulent means.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused, Jitendra Shaw, is entitled to bail, considering his period of detention and the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under the Assam GST Act and BNS provisions? Petitioner's arguments: The accused is the proprietor of M/s Assam Bitumex but claims no involvement in the alleged offences. The case requires verification of electronic records and evidence already seized by the Investigating Officer (IO). The accused has been in jail since June 15, 2026, is ready to cooperate with the investigation, and co-accused have already been granted bail. Therefore, the bail petition should be allowed. Revenue's arguments: The accused is the proprietor of the firms that availed input tax credit amounting to Rs. 7,21,22,244/- through fraudulent means and forged invoices, which is detrimental to the national economy. The accused used to obtain financial benefits from these firms monthly. The investigation is at a crucial stage, and thus, the petition should be dismissed.