Saddam Hussain And 3 Ors vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners on 23.03.2023 should be made absolute. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements had been recorded. Furthermore, the four vehicles involved in the incident had been released after the recovery of the correct amount of GST along with penalty. Considering these developments and the fact that similarly situated persons had already been granted bail, the Court found no justifiable ground to modify the interim order. The ratio decidendi is that when an accused has cooperated with the investigation, their statements have been recorded, and the financial implications (GST and penalty) have been resolved, and similarly situated individuals have been granted bail, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The Court made the interim order absolute and disposed of the Anticipatory Bail Application.

Facts

The petitioners, Saddham Hussain and three others, filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail. They apprehended arrest in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 96/2023, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State of Assam was the respondent. The petitioners had previously been granted interim anticipatory bail by an order dated 23.03.2023. The Case Diary indicated that the statements of the accused persons had been recorded, and the four vehicles involved in the incident had been released after the recovery of the correct amount of GST along with penalty. The petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and their statements were recorded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners should be made absolute, considering the stage of the investigation and the recovery of GST and penalty. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 438 Cr.P.C. and principles of bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they had cooperated with the investigation, appeared before the I.O., and their statements were recorded. They also pointed out that similarly situated persons had been enlarged on bail. The recovery of the correct GST amount and penalty, along with the release of vehicles, suggested that the primary objective of the investigation concerning the alleged evasion had been addressed. Revenue/State's arguments: The State did not appear to have raised any specific arguments against the confirmation of the bail, as indicated by the Court's perusal of the Case Diary and the absence of any contrary submission recorded in the judgment. The State was represented by the Additional P.P., Assam, who produced the Case Diary.