Diganta Chetia And Anr. vs. The State Of Assam
Held
The Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage. The Case Diary revealed sufficient incriminating materials regarding the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. The statements of the trailer truck driver and helper corroborated their involvement. Furthermore, the Court noted that other accused persons involved in the crime were evading arrest, and the investigation was still in its nascent stage. Considering these factors, the Court concluded that the detention of the petitioners since September 6, 2024, could not be a ground for granting bail at this point. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the Case Diary was ordered to be returned. No specific provision of the GST Act was discussed or relied upon by the Court in its decision regarding bail.
Facts
The petitioners, Diganta Chetia and Luchan Gogoi, sought bail in Sivasagar Police Station Case No. 115/2024, registered under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on September 6, 2024, by a person who purchased scrap materials. The informant's trailer truck, transporting the scrap, was intercepted by GST officials, and the driver's communication ceased. Acting on suspicion of hijacking, the police intercepted the trailer truck and recovered the driver from an Alto car. This car yielded a 7.65 MM pistol with ammunition, and four individuals, including the petitioners, were apprehended for dacoity of the scrap materials. The petitioners were arrested on September 6, 2024, and have been in custody since.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail in Sivasagar Police Station Case No. 115/2024, considering the stage of investigation and the materials on record, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? The petitioners argued for bail, implicitly relying on the general principles of bail and the right to liberty. They sought release from custody, suggesting their detention was no longer necessary or justified. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the Case Diary contained sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners, indicating their involvement in the alleged crime. They highlighted that the statements of the trailer truck driver and helper implicated the petitioners, and that other accused persons were still evading arrest, with the investigation being at a nascent stage. Therefore, they argued against granting bail at this juncture.
Sections Cited
Section 310(2), Section 25(1-B)(a), Section 483
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 23-10-2024 Heard Mr. P K Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.
By this application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
Page No.# 2/3 2023, the petitioners, namely, (i) Diganta Chetia, son of late Budheswar Chetia, resident of Hahchara, Chetia Gaon, P.S. & District-Sivasagar and (ii) Luchan Gogoi, son of Lalit Gogoi, resident of Lakwa Mohan Deodhai
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.