Sri Vikas Singla And Anr vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioners, Sri Vikas Singla and Sri Ashwani Kumar, sought bail in connection with Latasil Police Station Case No. 42 of 2026. The case was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following the arrest of one Akshay Bansode with 29 large and 50 small yellow metal bars suspected to be gold. The petitioners, proprietors of Makali Goldsmith Assam and M/s Onam Sales Kolkata respectively, claimed the gold was genuine and had been transferred between their businesses via Akshay Bansode. They presented GST tax invoices and argued no illegality was committed. The State contended the gold was intended for smuggling out of Assam, and the petitioners presented forged documents while claiming custody of the seized items. The investigation was stated to be at a nascent stage.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioners. The decision was based on the production of five GST Tax Invoices before the Investigating Officer concerning the seized gold. Additionally, the Court considered that the petitioners had been in jail for a considerable length of time, implying they had been interrogated and further interrogation might not be necessary. The Court reasoned that the presence of GST invoices suggested a legitimate transaction, mitigating the immediate concerns of smuggling or fraud, especially at the bail stage. The ratio decidendi is that the existence of valid tax documentation for goods seized in a criminal case can be a significant factor in granting bail, particularly when the accused has already undergone a period of detention. The petitioners were enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with a local surety, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving their residence without permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the seized gold was genuine and not fake, supported by GST tax invoices. They also referred to a previous court order concerning the bail of another accused, Akshay Bansode, which noted the gold was not fake. They contended that no illegality was committed by them. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that the gold was intended for smuggling out of the state and that the petitioners had presented forged and manufactured documents while claiming custody of the seized articles. The State also emphasized that the investigation was in its nascent stage and objected to the grant of bail.