Krishna Bhama vs. The State Of Assam

ORDER 30.03.2022 By way of this bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC, petitioner, namely, Krishna Bhama, has sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Basistha PS Case No. 211/2022, registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC. Heard the counsel for both the parties. On 14.02.2022, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati, lodged an Page No.# 2/4 FIR to the effect that Sri Balwan Bhama, one of the Directors of M/s Vaishnu Devi Traders Pvt. Ltd., bearing GST Registration No. 18AABCV7486MIZI, has purportedly committed the offence of fake bill trading, mainly in connivance with his son, Yudhistra Bhama, who is the Director of M/s Jai Maa Coal Pvt. Ltd., and Mrs. Krishna Bhama, present petitioner (wife of Sri Balwan Bhama), Director of M/s Bittu Coal Traders, M/s Maruti Fuels and M/s Pahal Coal Limited, have deliberately entered into a nexus of common criminal conspiracy with a malafide intent in defrauding and depriving the State Exchequer of its legitimate revenue. Due to the conspiracy, the Centre and the State Exchequer had to loss revenue worth Rs. 10.22 crores (approx.) and accordingly, the aforesaid PS Case was registered. The accused petitioner, Balwan Bhama was also shown arrested in connection with Basistha PS Case No. 180/2022, with similar accusations. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although the petitioner, Krishna Bhama, is a Director of M/s Bittu Coal Traders, M/s Maruti Fuels and M/s Pahal Coal Limited, but she has no knowledge and information of the day-to-day activities of the business, as she is busy in her household works and has no knowledge of the works of the company, run by her husband. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is ignorant of all the affairs of the company and referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jagdish Shrivastav –Vs- State of Maharashtra, in SLP to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 1758/2022, it is contended that that any arrest without serving notice under Section 41 A CrPC will be non-compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, given in the case of Arnesh Kumar –Vs- State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Referring to another decision of the Bombay High Court, passed in ABA No. 319 of 2020, it has been contended that while the wife is a sleeping partner and who has no role in the day-to-day business affairs of the company, she should not be arrested being a house-wife and should be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam

Page No.# 3/4 that the citations relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the petitioner, as she is not a dormant or sleeping partner, but she is the Director of the Company and she is found to be actively involved in the affairs of the companies and she cannot escape the liability as a Director by taking a lame excuse. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the objection raised by the IO. The IO has submitted the following findings, which have been surfaced during the investigation and has, raised the bail objection:- 1) This is an organized crime and the entire modus operandi as well as other associates, who may be involved in the instant case by framing network of fake bill trading, who are yet to be identified. Furthermore, the accused person in connivance with other associates, allegedly had been so long making fake bill trading to gain unlawful profit or to pass on the benefit to some unknown business entities. During preliminary investigation, it has come to light that Krishna Bhama, the petitioner herein, along with her associates has cheated the State Tax Department, which has caused a loss of Rs. 10.22 crores (approximately) to the State Exchequer and the custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner in that angle is needed to unearth more details. It is submitted that though the prime accused of the case, Sri Balwan Bhama was taken on police remand in the case, but he has not cooperated in the investigation. 2) The accused along with the other associates have allegedly committed an economic offence/white collar crime, which has caused a loss of Rs. 10.22 crores to the State and Central Exchequer. The IO has pointed out that if the economic offenders, like the petitioner, who ruins the economy of the State is not brought to book, the entire community will be aggrieved. A serious economic office is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit, and in view of magnitude and severity of the offence, the accused

Page No.# 4/4 person may not be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 3) The petitioner, Krishna Bhama is a resident of Guwahati, and also owns property in the State of Haryana and other parts of the country and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, she may influence the witnesses and may also temper with the evidence in the present case, which will hamper the whole investigation process. 4) Investigation reveals that all four family members of the same family, namely, Sri Balwan Bhama, Smt Krishna Bhama (petitioner, herein), Sri Yudhistra Bhama and Smti Roushan Soni, are directly involved in the case with the same modus operandi and all of them, except the prime accused, Balwan Bhama, are yet to be apprehended, as they are still absconding from their address to evade arrest. In view of the materials in the Case Diary, there is nothing to hold that the petitioner, Krishna Bhama is simply a house-wife and not associated with the affairs of the company as contended and she is evading the arrest since long. Considering the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly, her bail application is rejected. Return the Case Diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant