Deepak Garg @ Dipak Agarwal vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The primary reasoning for allowing the bail was the fact that a co-accused in the same Khetri Police Station Case No. 248/2018 had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the Court. While the petitioner's counsel referred to Sections 122 and 132 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Court's decision appears to be predominantly influenced by the parity with the co-accused's bail order and the petitioner's custody period. The Court did not explicitly delve into the merits of the GST provisions in relation to the bail decision, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of parity. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety, prohibiting inducement or threat to witnesses, and requiring the petitioner not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of the State without prior permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Garg, was arrested on October 11, 2018, and had been in custody for 18 days at the time of the hearing. The petitioner's counsel argued that all documents related to the FIR allegations had been seized. The petitioner's arrest stemmed from Khetri Police Station Case No. 248/2018. The petitioner's counsel also highlighted that similar provisions for penalty and punishment exist under Sections 122 and 132 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Crucially, a co-accused, Gaurav Agarwal, had already been granted pre-arrest bail in the same case by this Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in Khetri Police Station Case No. 248/2018, considering the custody period and the fact that all relevant documents have been seized? 2. Whether the provisions of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 122 and 132, are relevant to the alleged offences and the petitioner's entitlement to bail? 3. Whether the grant of pre-arrest bail to a co-accused in the same case warrants the grant of bail to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had been in custody for 18 days and that all documents related to the FIR allegations had been seized. He also pointed to Sections 122 and 132 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provide for penalties and punishments, suggesting that the alleged offences might be covered by these provisions. Furthermore, the petitioner relied on the precedent of a co-accused being granted pre-arrest bail in the same case. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had not received the Case Diary and requested further time to produce it.