Bamang Sei vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Bamang Sei, proprietor of M/s B.S. Enterprise, sought pre-arrest bail in Jonai P.S. Case No. 162/2021, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had previously 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 willingness to continue cooperation. The respondent State submitted that the petitioner was not an FIR-named accused, and the FIR was primarily against one Chibang Pal, against whom a charge-sheet had been filed. Investigation was ongoing for 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 petitioner's conduct, specifically their appearance before the Investigating Officer and cooperation with the investigation after being granted interim pre-arrest bail. The Court also considered the submission that the petitioner was not an FIR-named accused and that a charge-sheet had already been filed against the primary accused. The Court found it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted on March 10, 2025, was made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, considering their cooperation with the investigation and the fact that they are not an FIR-named accused? This issue turns on the interpretation of principles governing anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, and the assessment of the necessity of custodial interrogation. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that they had fully cooperated with the investigation after obtaining interim pre-arrest bail, submitted all required GST documents, and were ready to continue cooperating. They contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Respondent (State): Submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and the primary accused, Chibang Pal, had already been charge-sheeted. While investigation was ongoing for other accused, the petitioner's cooperation post-interim bail was noted.