Subhash Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The Court held that while economic offences require a different perspective, the right of the petitioner to get bail must also be balanced. It noted that the investigation was complete and the offence report had been filed, making the custodial detention of the petitioner unnecessary for further investigation. The Court found no indication that the petitioner was likely to evade trial or tamper with witnesses. Considering the petitioner had been in custody for 65 days, and the offence under Section 132(1)(i) of the AGST Act carries a punishment of up to five years with fine, the Court concluded that the petitioner deserved to be granted bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to stringent conditions including not leaving the territorial jurisdiction without permission, depositing passport, not tampering with evidence, and not inducing or threatening witnesses.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Subhash Kumar Singh, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. in connection with BI (E.O) Assam Tax P.E. No. 03(03)/2021, under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. The petitioner was arrested on July 12, 2021, and has been in detention since. The Superintendent of State Tax Assam alleged that the petitioner was involved in evading taxes and Cess amounting to over Rs. 5,00,00,000/- by deliberately supplying goods without issuing invoices during the period 2019 to 2021. The total evasion detected, including tax, cess, penalty, and interest, was Rs. 22,77,13,211.04, with evaded tax and cess amounting to Rs. 10,22,31,514.18. The investigation report and offence report have been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. given the nature of the economic offence alleged and the amount of tax evasion, considering the completion of investigation and filing of the offence report? (Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017 and Section 439 of the Cr.PC.). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that since the investigation is complete and the offence report has been laid, there is no scope for tampering with evidence or investigation. They contended that the offence is compoundable under Section 138 of the AGST Act. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in *Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation* and *P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement*, emphasizing that the seriousness of the charge is not the sole factor and that the presence of the accused may not be necessary for further investigation after charge-sheet filing. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that economic offences constitute a class apart and require a different approach for bail due to their deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds, posing a serious threat to the country's economy. They cited Supreme Court judgments in *State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others* and *Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation*, highlighting the need to consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and the larger interests of the public/State.