Yar Alam vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, making the interim order absolute. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR, and the allegations were specifically directed against Abul Awal. It was also noted that Fojal Haque was considered the prime accused involved in generating E-Way bills. The Court considered the petitioner's submission that he is the sole breadwinner, a local resident, and not a flight risk. Furthermore, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer, his statement was recorded, and he had not violated any bail conditions. The Court found sufficient grounds to grant pre-arrest bail, acknowledging the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the petitioner's direct involvement is not clearly established by the FIR, they are a local resident, not a flight risk, and willing to cooperate with the investigation, pre-arrest bail may be granted, especially when other individuals are identified as prime accused.

Facts

The petitioner, Yar Alam, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Umrangso Police Station Case No. 10/2024, registered under Sections 406, 409, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR alleged that a person named Abul Awal, whose GST number was cancelled, was generating E-Way bills in the name of the informant, Biren Singh Enghi. The petitioner claimed he was unaware of any scam involving E-Way bills generated in another person's name and that during his brick business, he procured two challans from Fojal Haque without knowing their genuineness. The petitioner stated he is the sole breadwinner, a local resident, and not a flight risk, and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement was 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 cheating and forgery under Sections 406/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was unaware of any scam involving the generation of E-Way bills in another person's name. He stated that he procured challans from Fojal Haque for his brick business without knowledge of their authenticity. He further argued that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, a local resident, not a flight risk, and willing to cooperate with the investigation. His name is not mentioned in the FIR, and the allegations are specifically against Abul Awal. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent State against the grant of pre-arrest bail.