Asish Mandal vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the case is not fit for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the scrutiny of the case diary, which revealed prima facie incriminating evidence against the petitioner. Specifically, it was revealed that although the areca nuts were booked in the petitioner's name, he does not personally deal in the supari business. He is alleged to have illegally procured the seized supari, suspected to be of foreign origin, and booked it by manipulating records to fraudulently show it as locally procured. The Court concluded that the petitioner is prima facie involved in an inter-state supari syndicate. These findings, though subject to the final outcome of the investigation, were sufficient for the Court to deny pre-arrest bail. The interim order granting pre-arrest bail was vacated, and the application was rejected.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashish Mandal, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 93/2021, registered under Sections 120B/420/471/413/34 of the IPC. The petitioner had been granted interim pre-arrest bail on October 7, 2021, subject to conditions, and had appeared before the investigating officer. The case involves the recovery and seizure of 535 gunny bags of betel nut/areca nut suspected to be of foreign origin from railway wagons. The petitioner's firm deals in agricultural produce, including areca nuts, and pays GST. The FIR alleges that the seized areca nuts were booked in the petitioner's name for rail shipment, and he is suspected of illegally procuring foreign-origin supari, manipulating records to show it as locally procured, and being involved in an inter-state syndicate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 93/2021, considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence on record? The petitioner's contentions were that he is a proprietor of a business firm dealing in agricultural produce like areca nuts, pays requisite GST, and is innocent. He also submitted that he has cooperated with the investigation as per the interim bail order. The State's contentions were that although the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer, the case diary reveals serious incriminating evidence against him, making it an unfit case for granting pre-arrest bail. The State highlighted the allegations of illegal procurement and booking of foreign-origin areca nuts by manipulating records.