Shajidur Rahman vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the perusal of the case diary, which indicated sufficient complicity of the petitioner. The examination of the petitioner's employee corroborated the allegations that the petitioner had provided the informant's GST number to other persons for illegal use. The petitioner's admission regarding the creation of the GST registration was also noted. The Court found that a thorough investigation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the matter. Therefore, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The earlier interim order was vacated, and the bail petition was rejected.

Facts

The petitioner, Shajidur Rahman, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Paltanbazar P.S. Case No. 441/2021, registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC. The informant, owner of M/s. Enigma Associates, entrusted the petitioner with GST registration. The petitioner allegedly informed the informant about obtaining necessary credentials for GST returns. However, upon receiving a notice under Section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017, the informant discovered that the GST number created in their favor was being illegally used for another person. The petitioner's employee, when examined, implicated the petitioner for allowing the illegal use of the informant's GST number. The petitioner admitted to the creation of the GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with Paltanbazar P.S. Case No. 441/2021, registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, implying a contention that the circumstances did not warrant custodial interrogation or that the allegations were not serious enough to deny bail. The specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment. Respondent's (State of Assam) Argument: The State argued against granting pre-arrest bail, highlighting the need for thorough investigation to unearth the entire matter and pointing to the sufficient complicity of the petitioner based on the case diary and the examination of the petitioner's employee. The State contended that the GST number was illegally used for other persons, indicating fraudulent activity.