Taizuddin Ahmed vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, Taizuddin Ahmed, making the interim order absolute. The Court considered the petitioner's submissions that he was unaware of the scam involving e-way bills and had only procured challans from Fojal Haque without knowing their genuineness. It was noted that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR, and the allegations were specifically against Abul Awal. The Court also took into account that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner, a local resident, not a flight risk, and willing to cooperate with the investigation. The fact that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statements were recorded, without violating any bail conditions, further supported the decision. The Court found sufficient grounds to grant pre-arrest bail, considering all aspects of the case and the submissions made.

Facts

The petitioner, Taizuddin Ahmed, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Umrangso Police Station Case No. 10/2024, registered under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR alleged that one Abul Awal was generating e-way bills using the informant's GST number, which had been cancelled. The petitioner claimed he was unaware of any scam and had only procured two challans from Fojal Haque for his brick business, without knowing their genuineness. He also submitted that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, a local resident, and not a flight risk, willing to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR, with allegations specifically against Abul Awal. The petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statements were recorded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of fraud and forgery related to e-way bills? The petitioner argued that he was unaware of any scam involving e-way bills and had merely procured challans from one Fojal Haque for his brick business without verifying their authenticity. He emphasized his role as the sole breadwinner, his local residency, and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, suggesting he was not a flight risk. The petitioner also highlighted that his name was not directly mentioned in the FIR, with the primary accusation directed at Abul Awal. The respondent State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not present any specific arguments against the grant of pre-arrest bail in the provided text, beyond the general context of the FIR's allegations.