Md. Amir Khan vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by both parties. It noted that the petitioner had been in custody since November 3, 2022. The Court found that further custodial detention for the purpose of investigation did not appear to be necessary. It was also of the view that the investigation would not be adversely affected by the petitioner's release on bail, and there seemed to be no possibility of tampering with evidence. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro). The bail application was disposed of, and the case diary was returned.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Amir Khan, filed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 2371/2022, registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC. The petitioner is accused of inducing the informant to invest Rs. 16,10,000/- in his Rajasthan-based company, Flurry Products Ltd. The petitioner allegedly supplied damaged products worth Rs. 11,50,000/- and submitted fraudulent e-way bills without returning the GST paid. The petitioner has been in custody since November 3, 2022. The State submitted that a notice under Section 41A CrPC was sent to the Managing Director of Flurry Products Ltd.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and the stage of investigation? The petitioner argued that he has been in jail since November 3, 2022, and further custodial detention is not necessary for the investigation. He contended that the investigation would not be adversely affected if he is released on bail and there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. The State, represented by the Additional PP, submitted that a notice under Section 41A CrPC had been sent to the Managing Director of the petitioner's company, indicating ongoing investigation. The State did not explicitly argue against bail but presented facts related to the investigation.