Mr. Furkan Azam @ Furkan Ali vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the present case was not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the materials in the case diary suggesting the petitioner's complicity in the alleged conspiracy to evade tax and execute fake e-way bills using another person's GSTIN. The Court noted that other accused involved in the scheme had already been arrested. The Court found that the alleged offenses, which included tax evasion, forgery, and cheating, were serious in nature and required further investigation. Consequently, the pre-arrest bail petition was rejected, and the interim bail previously granted was vacated. The Court directed the return of the case diary forthwith. No specific section of the GST Act was explicitly discussed in relation to the bail decision, but the underlying offense involved GST evasion.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Furkan Azam @ Furkan Ali, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 1015/2021, registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the Dy. Commissioner of Sale Tax, Sivasagar, alleging that one Safikul Ali supplied coal through 529 e-way bills from February 2020 to June 2021, but no returns were filed on the GST portal. Investigations revealed that Safikul Ali, a small boiler meat seller, had not conducted these transactions. It was discovered that Ashif Hussain used Safikul Ali's Aadhar card and, with associates including the petitioner, conspired to evade tax by creating fake e-way bills and illegally using Safikul Ali's GSTIN without his knowledge to supply coal. The petitioner's involvement is suggested by case diary materials, and other accused have been arrested.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and using forged documents to evade GST and illegally supply coal. Arguments for the Petitioner: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, implying a contention that the materials on record did not sufficiently establish his complicity in the alleged tax evasion and forgery scheme, and that granting bail would not impede the investigation. The petitioner relied on the general principles for granting pre-arrest bail. Arguments for the Respondent (State): The State, through the PP, Assam, argued against granting pre-arrest bail, highlighting the petitioner's alleged complicity as suggested by the case diary materials and the arrest of other accused. The State contended that the nature of the alleged offenses, involving tax evasion, forgery, and conspiracy, warranted custodial interrogation and that granting bail would be detrimental to the investigation.