Aminur Rahman vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Aminur Rahman, owner of M/s Afrin Store, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 75/2025. Police intercepted a truck carrying 240 bags of rice, suspecting it was intended for Public Distribution System (PDS). The driver stated he was transporting the rice for the petitioner's store on his uncle's request and lacked knowledge of its intended distribution. The petitioner claimed to have paid the necessary GST for the rice transported to his shop. The police had not yet definitively proven that the seized rice was meant for PDS distribution.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was that the police had not yet successfully proven that the rice seized from the truck was intended for distribution through the Public Distribution System. Given this lack of definitive proof by the investigating authorities, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the prosecution has not yet established a prima facie case or the core allegation against the accused, anticipatory bail can be granted to protect the individual from unwarranted arrest. The operative direction was that in the event of arrest, the petitioner Aminur Rahman shall be released on bail of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount, and he is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the ongoing investigation into the intended distribution of the seized rice. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he is the owner of a grocery store, M/s Afrin Store, and had paid the requisite GST on the rice. He contended that the police had not yet established that the rice was intended for the Public Distribution System, making the grounds for his potential arrest tenuous. The driver's statement indicated a lack of knowledge regarding the PDS nature of the goods. Revenue/State's Argument: The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not present any specific arguments against the anticipatory bail application in the provided text. The judgment notes that the police were still trying to prove the fact that the rice was meant for PDS distribution.