Tayabur Rahman Laskar vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's compliance with the interim pre-arrest bail order, where he had provided his statement and produced photocopies of documents relevant to his ownership of the seized areca nuts. The Court noted that there was no adverse report against the petitioner and that he had been cooperating with the investigation. Consequently, the Court found that his custodial interrogation was not essential. The interim pre-arrest bail granted on 24.09.2021 was made absolute, subject to the conditions that the petitioner would cooperate with the investigation as and when required and would not induce, threaten, or promise any person to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the Court or police. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tayabur Rahman Laskar, filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail. He apprehended arrest in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 93/2021, registered for offences under Sections 120B/420/471/413/34 of the IPC. The petitioner claimed to have purchased areca nuts for Rs. 1,68,000/- from local retailers, paid 5% GST amounting to Rs. 8,400/-, and booked 15 bags for shipment. The State, however, alleged prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner, suggesting his involvement in an illegal trade racket. The case involved the seizure of 535 gunny bags of betel nut/areca nut suspected to be of foreign origin from railway wagons. The petitioner had previously been granted interim pre-arrest bail, during which he provided a statement and relevant documents regarding his ownership of the seized areca nuts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 93/2021, registered under Sections 120B/420/471/413/34 of the IPC, considering the allegations of involvement in an illegal trade racket of areca nuts. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he had legally purchased the seized areca nuts from local sellers, paid the applicable GST of 5% (Rs. 8,400/- on a purchase of Rs. 1,68,000/-), and had booked them for shipment, thus committing no illegality. He relied on the fact that he had cooperated with the investigation and provided documentary evidence of ownership. Revenue's Contention: The State argued that there was prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner and that he was part of a racket involved in the illegal trade of areca nuts. They opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail.