Sisir Biswas vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the case diary indicated that the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant. Furthermore, the investigation was still ongoing, and the Court was of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant appeared to be indispensable. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The interim order dated 22.12.2023 was vacated, and the petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where sufficient incriminating materials are collected, the investigation is ongoing, and custodial interrogation is deemed indispensable, pre-arrest bail will not be granted.

Facts

The petitioner, Sisir Biswas, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 452/2023, registered under Sections 420/406 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by Biswajit Malakar, alleging that he purchased a flat for Rs. 21,23,000/- plus Rs. 1,06,150/- as GST from M/S Subham Builders, represented by its proprietor, the petitioner, on 03.09.2021. After taking possession, the informant discovered the flat occupied by a third party, Lily Choudhury, and was informed by the petitioner that the flat was fraudulently sold to her. The petitioner claimed to have appeared before the Investigating Officer (IO) pursuant to an interim protection order and stated that the matter was settled with the informant, who was allegedly demanding double the price. The State argued that sufficient incriminating materials were collected and investigation was ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to a property transaction involving GST. The petitioner argued that he had complied with the interim protection order, cooperated with the investigation, and that the matter had been amicably settled with the informant, who was making unreasonable demands. The petitioner relied on the interim protection order granted by the Court. The State argued that the IO had collected sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, the investigation was ongoing, and the offence was serious, warranting custodial interrogation. The State contended that pre-arrest bail should be denied.