Nabam Sina vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Nabam Sina, proprietor of M/s Mama Enterprises, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Jonai P.S. Case No. 162/2021, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had obtained an interim pre-arrest bail on March 10, 2025, and subsequently appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.), cooperating with the investigation and submitting GST documents. The petitioner expressed readiness to continue cooperating. The State respondent noted that the petitioner was not the FIR-named accused, who was Chibang Pal, and that a charge-sheet had been filed against Chibang Pal, with investigations ongoing against other accused persons. The petitioner had cooperated after obtaining interim bail.

Held

The Court held that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary. This decision was based on the submissions of both parties, the materials available in the Case Diary, and the conduct of the petitioner, who had appeared before the I.O. and cooperated with the investigation after being granted interim pre-arrest bail. The Court found it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on March 10, 2025, was made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of accordingly. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering their cooperation with the investigation and the fact that they are not the primary accused in the FIR? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 and principles of bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had fully cooperated with the investigation after obtaining interim pre-arrest bail, submitted all required GST documents, and were willing to continue cooperating. They contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Revenue/State's arguments: The State respondent submitted that the petitioner was not the FIR-named accused, against whom a charge-sheet had already been filed. They acknowledged the petitioner's cooperation post-interim bail but noted that investigations were still underway against other accused persons.