Nikhil Sharma vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to grant bail to the accused-applicant at this stage. The reasoning was based on the perusal of the Case Diary, which revealed sufficient prima facie incriminating materials against the petitioner. The Court did not find grounds to interfere with the ongoing investigation or to release the accused pending further proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if the investigation prima facie uncovers substantial incriminating evidence against an accused, bail may be denied at an early stage. The operative direction was the rejection of the bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Nikhil Sharma, is an accused-applicant seeking bail in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 143/2026. An FIR was lodged by Janardhan Deka, who alleged that the petitioner, posing as a Chartered Accountant, induced him to entrust him with the task of filing his PF, ESIC, and GST returns. The informant claims to have paid the petitioner approximately ₹2,44,12,247 for deposit with the Tax Department. The informant discovered the non-deposit of these funds when he received a notice from the GST authority on January 20, 2026, indicating zero cash tax payment despite substantial turnover. Based on this, the FIR was registered under various sections of the BNS, 2023. The High Court perused the Case Diary and heard submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused-applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the prima facie incriminating materials against him? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, through his counsel, argued for the grant of bail. While the specific grounds for bail are not detailed in the judgment, the application itself is for bail, implying a contention that the conditions for bail are met or that the prosecution's case is weak at this stage. Respondent's Arguments: The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application. Their argument, as inferred from the court's decision, is that there are sufficient prima facie incriminating materials against the accused-applicant, warranting his continued custody.