Shri Deepak Shaw vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted bail to the accused, Deepak Shaw. The Court considered the period of detention undergone by the accused since June 15, 2026, and balanced it against the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses under the Assam GST Act and BNS. It was observed that the accused was paid Rs. 5,000/- by one Manoj Shaw, who collected his PAN, Aadhaar Card, Bank Passbook, and OTP to operate the firms. The Court found that further custodial detention of the accused might not be warranted in the interest of the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that when an accused has undergone a significant period of detention, and the investigation can proceed without further custodial interrogation, bail may be granted, especially when co-accused have also been released on bail. The accused was directed to furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Deepak Shaw, the accused, who has been in custody since June 15, 2026. The FIR was lodged on May 23, 2026, by an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, alleging fraudulent activities in violation of the Assam GST Act and various sections of the BNS. The allegations include the creation of fictitious business entities and wrongful availment of tax invoices in the names of non-existent taxpayers and the accused's firms, namely M/s Assam Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumex, and M/s Aida Bitumex. The accused claims he is the proprietor of M/s Barrel Bitumen and is not involved, stating the case requires verification of electronic records. He also notes that co-accused have been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused, Deepak Shaw, should be granted bail, considering the period of detention and the nature of the allegations under the Assam GST Act and BNS? The petitioner (accused) argued that he is the proprietor of M/s Barrel Bitumen and is not involved in the alleged offenses. He contended that the case involves verification of electronic records and evidence already seized by the Investigating Officer (IO). He also highlighted his arrest on June 15, 2026, his readiness to cooperate with the investigation, and the fact that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, thus arguing for the petition to be allowed. The respondent (State of Assam) argued that the accused is the proprietor of firms that fraudulently availed input tax credit amounting to Rs. 6,51,79,296/- through forged invoices, which is detrimental to the national economy. They further submitted that the accused used to obtain monthly financial benefits from these firms and that the investigation is still at a crucial stage, thus arguing for the petition to be dismissed.