Pradip Borah vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The primary reasoning appears to be based on parity with the co-accused who was granted pre-arrest bail. While the petitioner's counsel referred to Sections 122 and 132 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the judgment does not delve into a detailed analysis of these provisions in relation to the grant of bail. The Court considered the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for 20 days and that a co-accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The operative directions included the petitioner furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety, not making any inducement, threat, or promise to dissuade witnesses, and not leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the State without prior permission. The issue of the State not having the Case Diary was implicitly addressed by the Court proceeding to grant bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Pradip Borah, filed a bail application before the Gauhati High Court. He was arrested on October 11, 2018, and had been in custody for 20 days. The petitioner's counsel argued that all documents related to the allegations in the FIR had been seized. They also referred to Sections 122 and 132 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provide for penalties, confiscation of goods, and punishment for offenses. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that a co-accused, Gaurav Agarwal, had been granted pre-arrest bail in the same Khetri Police Station Case No. 248/2018. The State's counsel had not yet received the Case Diary and requested more time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the provisions of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 122 and 132, and the fact that all relevant documents have been seized? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity, given that a co-accused has already been granted pre-arrest bail in the same case? (Question of fact and law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the offenses alleged are punishable under Sections 122 and 132 of the Assam GST Act, 2017, which provide for penalties and punishment not less than six months. They contended that all documents related to the FIR have been seized, suggesting no further investigation is hampered by the petitioner's custody. Crucially, they relied on the precedent set by this Court in granting pre-arrest bail to co-accused Gaurav Agarwal in the same Khetri Police Station Case No. 248/2018.