Faiz Ahmed vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the applicant, Shri Faiz Ahmed, is entitled to be admitted to the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The Court noted that an interim bail was granted on 17.09.2025, pursuant to which the applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer on 20.10.2025, and his statement was recorded under Section 180 BNSS, 2023. This statement was found to corroborate with his bank records and WhatsApp communications with the main accused, Ashutosh Kumar Jha. The investigation indicated that the accused persons, led by Ashutosh Kumar Jha, created a fictitious firm using forged documents to pass fake Input Tax Credits. While the applicant's correspondence with the main accused suggests a connection, the Court found that after his examination and recording of his statement, custodial interrogation was not required. The Court also noted that the main accused had already been released on bail due to the delay in filing the charge-sheet. Therefore, the interim bail was made absolute. The ratio decidendi is that when an applicant for pre-arrest bail has cooperated with the investigation, their statement corroborates with evidence, and further custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary, pre-arrest bail should be granted, especially when the main accused has also been released on bail.

Facts

This case involves an application for pre-arrest bail filed by Shri Faiz Ahmed in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 182/2024. The FIR was lodged by the CGST & CX Itanagar Commissionerate alleging that a firm, M/S Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, fraudulently obtained a GST ID using forged documents, including a fake rent agreement and seal of a Judicial Magistrate. This fictitious firm allegedly raised fake invoices amounting to approximately Rs. 658.25 Crores, defrauding the government of about Rs. 99.31 Crores. The applicant, Faiz Ahmed, claims to run a separate small business and states he engaged a Chartered Accountant, Asis Kumar Jha, who later passed away. The applicant continued to repay a loan to the deceased CA's widow, and subsequently, the deceased's former employee, Ashutosh Kumar Jha (an accused in the FIR), allegedly began pressuring him for loan payments. The applicant asserts no connection with M/S Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, run by Ashutosh Kumar Jha, and claims to have cooperated with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Shri Faiz Ahmed, is entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 182/2024, under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471/473/474 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has no connection with the alleged fraudulent business of M/S Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, which is run by Ashutosh Kumar Jha. The applicant has joined the investigation as soon as he became aware of the case, is cooperating fully, has no criminal antecedents, and apprehends arrest due to a perceived connection with Ashutosh Kumar Jha. Therefore, pre-arrest bail is sought. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State submitted that the applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023, was recorded. This statement corroborates his bank transactions and WhatsApp conversations with the main accused, Ashutosh Kumar Jha. The State also noted that the main accused has been enlarged on bail due to the charge-sheet not being filed within the statutory period, and since the applicant's statement has been recorded and he has been thoroughly examined, further custodial interrogation is not necessary.