Md. Galib Mirzaul Ali @ Riki vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Galib Mirazul Ali @ Riki, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 1015/2021, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the IPC. The informant, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sivasagar, alleged that one Safikul Ali, proprietor of M/S. S.R. Associates, supplied coal via 529 E-Way bills between February 2020 and June 2021, but no returns were filed on the GST portal. Investigations revealed that Safikul Ali's PAN card was handed over to Asif Hussain for a Trade Licence, and Safikul Ali had no knowledge of GST registration in his name. The petitioner, along with Asif Hussain, Nawazur Rahman, and Furkan Ali, allegedly used Asif Hussain's GSTIN without his knowledge to supply coal with forged E-Way bills, involving transactions of approximately Rs. 5 crores and tax evasion of Rs. 45 lakhs.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the serious complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offenses. The investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with others, deliberately used the GSTIN of Asif Hussain without his knowledge to supply coal using forged E-Way bills. These transactions amounted to approximately Rs. 5 crores, resulting in a tax evasion of Rs. 45 lakhs. The Court considered this a serious offense and opined that it was not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The application for pre-arrest bail was accordingly rejected. No specific issues were framed as questions of law, but the decision hinges on the assessment of the petitioner's involvement in the alleged criminal activities related to GST evasion and forgery.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC given the allegations of serious complicity in tax evasion and forgery? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, implying a contention that the allegations did not warrant custodial interrogation or that there were grounds for anticipatory relief. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond the application for bail. Revenue's Argument: The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, likely argued against granting pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the alleged offenses, including tax evasion, forgery, and the use of forged documents, as evidenced by the investigation and the substantial amount of tax evaded.