Sankar Poddar vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted bail to the accused petitioner, Sankar Poddar. While acknowledging that the case diary revealed prima facie incriminating evidence against the petitioner, subject to the final outcome of the investigation, the Court considered the length of detention and the progress made in the investigation. The Court was of the opinion that further continuation of the accused's detention in the interest of the ongoing investigation might not be necessary. Accordingly, the petitioner was released on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigating officer, not inducing witnesses, and refraining from committing similar offenses. The issue of guilt or innocence was not decided, as the investigation was ongoing.

Facts

The petitioner, Sankar Poddar, a Chartered Accountant and proprietor of M/s S.S. Associate, was engaged by M/s Volcano Enterprise to oversee their GST compliance and tax payments. M/s Volcano Enterprise had an agreement with M/s Star Cement Meghalaya Ltd. for loading/unloading services and had been making GST payments through the petitioner since 2017. The enterprise credited the tax amounts to the petitioner's bank accounts. However, on December 30, 2020, M/s Volcano Enterprise received a demand notice from the Deputy Commissioner of Tax for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. An inquiry revealed that the petitioner had allegedly misappropriated the GST amounts paid by the enterprise and amassed significant wealth. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since March 7, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant bail to the accused petitioner, Sankar Poddar, in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 44/2021, registered under Sections 408, 468, 420, and 471 of the IPC read with Section 66 of the IT Act, considering the prima facie incriminating evidence against him and the ongoing investigation. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued for bail, emphasizing the length of his detention (51 days) and the progress made in the investigation, suggesting that further detention might not be necessary for the completion of the investigation. Contentions of the Respondent (State of Assam): The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, presented the case diary which indicated prima facie incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The State did not explicitly argue against bail but relied on the evidence presented in the case diary.