Amit Kumar Jha vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Amit Kumar Jha. While acknowledging the existence of incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, the Court considered that at this stage of the investigation, bail could be granted. The Court was influenced by the submission that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, is not a flight risk and is willing to cooperate with the remaining part of the investigation. The petitioner was enlarged on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup. Conditions were imposed, including appearing before the Investigating Officer fortnightly, refraining from alleged activities, and not leaving the court's jurisdiction without prior permission. The Court noted that on breach of any condition, the bail order would stand cancelled. The bail application was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Jha, an advocate, sought bail in connection with a case registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023. He has been in custody since June 14, 2026. The allegation against him is that he, as a lawyer, was involved in evading GST amounting to crores of rupees by representing a shell company. The petitioner claims he was acting on behalf of his clients and is innocent. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, objected to the bail application, citing incriminating materials in the case diary, including the petitioner representing a non-existent and shell company, and no transfer of goods being detected. The State also alleged the petitioner took signatures on blank papers and framed co-accused using their Aadhaar and PAN cards.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Amit Kumar Jha, is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of GST evasion and his role as an advocate for a shell company? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, an advocate, was merely acting on behalf of his clients in GST cases and is innocent. He is not a flight risk and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. They contend that he represented a non-existent company and a shell company, and no goods transfer was detected. Furthermore, the State alleged the petitioner actively took signatures on blank papers and used the Aadhaar and PAN cards of co-accused to frame them.