Jahar Ali And 2 Othrs vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The primary reason for granting bail was the lack of conclusive evidence in the case diary. Specifically, the Court noted that the seized 21 drums of suspected petroleum products did not have their quantity specified, and there was no report confirming whether the seized substances were indeed petroleum products. Furthermore, the genuineness of the tax invoice, e-Way Bill, and GST receipt provided by Petitioner No. 1 was not ascertained by the police. The Court also observed that a co-accused involved in the illegal business of petroleum products was yet to be apprehended. Considering these deficiencies in the investigation and the period of detention of the petitioners since October 19, 2024, the Court concluded that their further custodial detention was not warranted for the investigation of Goalpara P.S. Case No. 139/2024. The petitioners were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two local sureties each of the like amount, subject to several conditions.

Facts

The petitioners, Jahar Ali, Hanif Ali, and Abul Kalam, sought bail in Goalpara P.S. Case No. 139/2024, registered under Sections 303(2)/318(4)/336(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and Section 23 of the Petroleum Act. They were arrested on October 19, 2024. The FIR alleged that on October 17, 2024, a truck was found carrying 21 drums suspected to be petroleum products. Petitioner No. 2, the truck owner, and Petitioner No. 3, the driver, were apprehended. They stated that Petitioner No. 1 had sent the products, collected from an unknown place, for sale to another accused. Petitioner No. 1 was subsequently arrested. The police seized the truck and the drums. The petitioners have been in custody since their arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail in Goalpara P.S. Case No. 139/2024, considering the materials on record and their period of detention? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that Petitioner No. 1 procured industrial solvent oil from Sikkim Organics, Sikkim, on October 16, 2024, with proper tax invoices and sent it to Oil Chemical Industries, Guwahati, on October 17, 2024. They contended that Petitioner No. 1 is in the business of petroleum products, specifically industrial solvent oil, and possesses a valid license. They also referred to Sections 2(a), (b), (bb), (bbb), and (c) of the Petroleum Act, 1934, and Rule 3 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, regarding the dispatch of petroleum. Furthermore, they cited the case of Kailash Kumar Agarwala Vs. State of Assam, (2004) 2 GLT 347, which held Section 23(1)(a) of the Petroleum Act, 1934, to be a bailable offense. Revenue's Arguments: The State respondent, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, presented the case diary for perusal.