Khusimohan Siddha @ Khushi Mohan Siddah vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner had been in custody since March 12, 2023; the correct amount of GST along with penalty had been recovered, and the four trucks involved in the incident had been released by the authorities; the petitioner's statement had been recorded; and crucially, other persons involved in the same occurrence had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court, as evidenced by the order dated March 20, 2023, in A.B. No. 1012/2023. The Court found that further custodial detention of the applicant was not necessary. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. Conditions were imposed that the applicant must cooperate fully with the investigation and not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior intimation. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Khusimohan Siddha, was arrested on March 12, 2023, in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 96/2023, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/34 IPC. The case involves the alleged evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST). The petitioner sought release on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The judgment notes that the GST amount along with penalty has been recovered, and the four trucks involved have been released. The petitioner's statement has been recorded, and the investigation is ongoing with documents seized. The petitioner has been in custody since his arrest. The petitioner's counsel argued that other individuals involved in the incident have been granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 96/2023, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/34 IPC, considering the recovery of GST dues and penalty, and the ongoing investigation. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued for bail based on his continued custody since March 12, 2023. He also contended that other individuals involved in the same occurrence have already been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court, citing order dated March 20, 2023, in A.B. No. 1012/2023. The recovery of the correct amount of GST along with penalty and the release of the trucks were also highlighted as factors favoring bail. Revenue's Contentions: The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, produced the Case Diary. No specific arguments against bail were recorded, beyond the fact that the investigation was still in progress.