Mr Gayaz vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the instant issue appears to be of a civil nature, concerning an oral contract for the sale of goods and subsequent payment. It found no criminal element involved in the case. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that a payment of Rs. 2,81,000/- was made and is lying with the GST Authority, leaving a remaining balance of Rs. 4,30,000/- which could be cleared upon replacement of damaged Areca Nuts by the informant. Consequently, the Court deemed it a fit case for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on pre-arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Authority within 15 days, cooperation with the investigation, and not tampering with evidence. The issue of criminal liability under Sections 402/406 IPC was not explicitly decided as a matter of law, but the Court's finding that the matter is civil in nature led to the grant of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Gayaz, a businessman operating M/s Aaina Traders, is seeking pre-arrest bail. The FIR alleges that his firm purchased Areca Nuts from the informant for Rs. 59,16,750/-, including GST. While most of the payment was made, an outstanding amount of Rs. 7,16,750/- remained unpaid despite repeated requests. The petitioner contends that the dispute is civil in nature, stemming from a damaged portion of the consignment, and he requested replacement before full payment. He also claims to have paid Rs. 2,81,000/- which is with the GST Authority, leaving a remaining balance of Rs. 4,30,000/- pending replacement of damaged goods by the informant. The case was registered under Sections 402/406 of the IPC at Kharupetia P.S. Case No. 143/2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispute concerning the non-payment of the outstanding amount for the Areca Nuts consignment, including GST, constitutes a criminal offense under Sections 402/406 of the IPC, or is it a civil dispute arising from a commercial transaction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the issue is purely civil, lacking any criminal element. He asserted that the non-payment is due to a dispute over damaged goods in the consignment, for which he requested replacement from the informant before making the full payment. He also highlighted that a significant portion of the payment has been made, and a sum of Rs. 2,81,000/- is with the GST Authority. Respondent's arguments: The State respondent, represented by the learned Addl. P.P., submitted that the Case Diary might need to be perused by the Court before granting pre-arrest bail.