Abdul Kader vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court allowed the petition for pre-arrest bail. It acknowledged the submissions of both parties, particularly the petitioner's argument that the case should have been registered under the GST Act and that offenses under it are generally bailable. The Court considered the materials in the case diary and the previous order granting bail. Consequently, it provided that in the event of the applicant's arrest in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 275/2021, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety. The bail was made conditional upon the applicant cooperating with the investigation, not inducing witnesses, and not leaving the jurisdiction of the CJM, Bongaigaon, without prior permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Kader, sought pre-arrest bail in Manikpur P.S. Case No. 275/2021, registered under Sections 379/411/420/468/34 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bongaigaon Unit, alleging that e-way bills generated for two vehicles might have been used for tax evasion and fraud. The petitioner had previously been granted bail in another matter but failed to appear before the Investigating Officer due to detention in a separate case, leading to the cancellation of his earlier bail. He expressed readiness to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the case registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is appropriate, or if it should have been registered under the GST Act, considering the alleged tax evasion? (Section 132 of the GST Act is implicitly in question). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the IPC sections invoked were not attracted and the case should have been registered under the GST Act. He contended that offenses under the GST Act are bailable if the evasion is below Rs. 5 crores, citing Section 132(4) of the GST Act. He also highlighted his previous bail and subsequent non-appearance due to detention in another case. Revenue's Contention: The State respondent acknowledged that while the case was registered under IPC sections, it pertains to the GST Act, and the investigation is ongoing.