Shri Abhimanyu Kumar @ Monu Singh vs. State Of Nagaland

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Abhimanyu Kumar @ Monu Singh, proprietor of M/s Makalyani Forest Produce Trading Depot, approached the Gauhati High Court seeking to make absolute an interim order passed on 26.06.2025. The petitioner appeared before the Investigating Agency on 29.07.2025, but failed to produce CGST Bills or cash transaction records as directed. While denying taking consignment in 2024, the petitioner was again directed to appear with relevant documents. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the main accused, Pradeep Singh, and another individual, Guneshwar Bharali, had been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench on 10.07.2025 in a related matter (AB/1565/2025). The State was represented by the Public Prosecutor.

Held

The Court considered the prayer of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case. It noted that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation and had appeared before the Investigating Agency on 29.07.2025. Consequently, the Court decided to make the interim order dated 26.06.2025 absolute. However, this was subject to the condition that the petitioner must continue to cooperate with the investigation and appear as and when summoned by the Investigating Officer without fail. The petitioner was also directed to provide all the documents that he was previously directed to produce to the Investigating Agency. The Court found no reason to deny the petitioner the relief sought, especially in light of his cooperation and the bail granted to co-accused. The ratio decidendi is that continued cooperation with the investigation and appearance when summoned, coupled with the fact that co-accused have been granted bail, warrants making an interim order absolute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order dated 26.06.2025 should be made absolute in favour of the petitioner, considering his cooperation with the investigation and the bail granted to co-accused? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had been cooperating with the investigation and had appeared before the Investigating Agency. Furthermore, the main accused and another individual involved in the case had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on 10.07.2025 in AB/1565/2025. Based on these grounds, the petitioner prayed for the interim order to be made absolute. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records that the Public Prosecutor for the State respondents was heard. The status report from the Investigating Officer indicated that the petitioner had not produced all the required documents (CGST Bills and cash transaction records) during his appearance on 29.07.2025, and had denied taking consignment in 2024, despite the complainant providing GST and e-way bills. However, no specific argument against making the interim order absolute was recorded.