Rohul Amin vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. While acknowledging that the FIR did not explicitly allege fraudulent selling by impersonating M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals, and that the GSTIN 18BGFPA0282E1ZW was indeed registered to the petitioner, the Court found significant inconsistencies in the petitioner's stand regarding his proprietorship of M/s. NRI Group of Companies and his relationship with M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals and the informant. The Court noted that it was not the forum to decide whether a proprietor could purchase goods from their own firm or the police's power to investigate GST evasion. However, the Court found that the informant had demonstrated the petitioner's changing stance. Crucially, the Court found that the informant had presented evidence of mobile call screenshots showing the petitioner repeatedly calling the informant and another individual to pressure them to compromise the matter, which constituted a breach of the interim bail conditions granted on 26.10.2022. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Rohul Amin, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 127/2022, alleging a monetary dispute being converted into a criminal prosecution. His previous bail petition was dismissed based on the submission that he was using a GSTIN belonging to M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals. In the present petition, the petitioner produced a Consent Letter from the Pollution Control Board reflecting him as proprietor of M/s. NRI Group of Companies and a GSTIN search showing the GSTIN was issued to him, though suspended. The informant contended that the petitioner committed fraud by projecting himself as proprietor of M/s. NRI Group of Companies and M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals, obtaining a GSTIN in his name, and preparing fake invoices to claim a sum from the informant. The petitioner's stand on ownership and his relationship with the informant and M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals was inconsistent across different applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 127/2022, considering the alleged financial dispute and inconsistencies in his statements regarding business ownership and GSTIN usage? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR primarily disclosed a monetary dispute and that his previous bail rejection was based on an incorrect premise regarding the GSTIN. He presented documents suggesting he was the proprietor of M/s. NRI Group of Companies and that the GSTIN was issued to him. He also claimed the allegations were unconnected to the FIR. Informant's arguments: The informant contended that the petitioner committed fraud by impersonating as the proprietor of M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals, obtaining a GSTIN, and creating fake invoices to defraud the informant. The informant highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements across different bail applications, suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. The informant also pointed to alleged breach of interim bail conditions by the petitioner.