Shahina Sultana And Anr vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the pre-arrest bail application. The reasoning was based on the submission by the petitioners' counsel that the application had become infructuous. The State's counsel did not object to this submission. Consequently, the Court disposed of the pre-arrest bail application as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the summons or the underlying GST proceedings, as the application was withdrawn. The operative direction was to dispose of the application on withdrawal.

Facts

The petitioners, Smt. Shahina Sultana and Mr. Shahbaz Haider, who are associated with M/s Aida Bitumex, filed an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This application was filed in response to summons dated April 23, 2025, and May 28, 2025, issued by the State GST Department. The summons were issued under Section 70 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in connection with these summons. The learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that the pre-arrest bail application had become infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in connection with summons issued by the State GST Department under Section 70 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017, has become infructuous? Petitioner's contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the pre-arrest bail application had become infructuous and therefore prayed for its withdrawal. Respondent's contention: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents had no objection to the withdrawal of the application.