Shafi Kamal Ahmed vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted. This decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had produced a certificate dated 15.11.2021, issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Barpeta Electrical Circle, APDCL. This certificate confirmed that the petitioner had cleared all GST dues before the concerned office after the FIR was lodged, and no GST was pending. The Court found this subsequent clearance of dues to be a significant factor in determining the necessity of pre-arrest bail. The interim bail previously granted to the petitioner was made absolute. The bail application was disposed of, and the case diary was to be returned.

Facts

The petitioner, Shafi Kamal Ahmed, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1139/2021, registered under Sections 420/406 IPC. The allegation, raised by the AGM, Barpeta Electrical Circle, APDCL, was that the petitioner had not deposited GST against works executed by him, as per LOA no. CEO/BPEC/SAU/59 dated 05.09.2018 and CEO/BPEC/APDCL/SAU/F-102 dated 12.04.2019. The petitioner subsequently produced a certificate dated 15.11.2021 from the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Electrical Circle, APDCL, stating that all GST dues had been cleared after the FIR was lodged and no GST was pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of non-deposit of GST and the subsequent clearance of dues. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was not warranted as he had subsequently cleared all pending GST dues, as evidenced by a certificate from the APDCL. This indicated that the core issue of non-payment of GST had been resolved. Revenue's contention: The State (respondent) did not appear to have made specific arguments on the merits of the GST non-payment in the provided text, focusing instead on the FIR registered under IPC sections. The judgment notes that the case diary and documents were perused, and learned counsel for both sides were heard, but the specific arguments of the State regarding the GST issue are not detailed.