Debasish Saha vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to default bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for 68 days, exceeding the statutory period of 60 days for detention before the filing of a charge sheet, as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the charge sheet had not yet been filed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner's right to default bail had accrued. The Court directed that upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Dima Hasao, Haflong, the accused be enlarged on bail. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Debasish Saha, sought bail in connection with Haflong P.S. Case No. 21/2022, registered under Sections 406/420 IPC. The FIR was lodged by Shri Amarjit Dibragede, alleging that the petitioner opened a GST account using the complainant's email ID, retained the login credentials, and failed to deposit GST amounts for the past four years. The complainant claimed to have deposited over a crore of rupees in GST over five years, which the petitioner allegedly misappropriated. The petitioner was arrested on May 13, 2022, and had been in custody for 68 days. The charge sheet had not yet been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the statutory period of detention has expired before the filing of the charge sheet, as stipulated by Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he was arrested on May 13, 2022, and had been in custody for 68 days. He contended that the statutory period of detention, stated to be 60 days, had already expired, entitling him to default bail. Revenue/State's Argument: The State, represented by the learned Addl. PP, submitted that the Investigating Officer had not yet filed the charge sheet in the case.