Abu Bakkar Barbhuiya And Anr. vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court allowed the petition for pre-arrest bail. The primary finding was that the petitioners had presented all requisite valid documents in their favour, including a tax invoice and an e-way bill, for the consignment of sufari. The Court acknowledged the allegation that the petitioners had shown a lesser value for the sufari during transit, but deemed this to be a matter for the appropriate department to address, rather than a ground for custodial detention at this stage. Consequently, the Court held that custodial detention of the petitioners was not warranted. The ratio decidendi is that where an accused provides valid documentation for a consignment, even if there are allegations of undervaluation for tax purposes, pre-arrest bail may be granted, with the tax issue to be pursued by the relevant tax authorities. The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety of like amount, and directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days and cooperate with the investigation.

Facts

The petitioners, Abu Bakkar Barbhuiya and Nazrul Islam, sought pre-arrest bail in Panchgram P.S. Case No. 119/2021, registered under Sections 379/420 of the IPC. The police apprehended a bus carrying 30 bags of Burmese Battle nut, suspecting it to be stolen and lacking valid documents. Allegations suggested the petitioners were involved in this business, paying minimal tax instead of the actual GST. However, the petitioners presented documents, including a tax invoice of Rs. 3,36,000/- for 2000 kg of sufari and an e-way bill, indicating they had sent the consignment with tax compliance. The case diary noted that the petitioners had shown a lesser value for the sufari during transit, which the court considered a matter for the appropriate department.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with Panchgram P.S. Case No. 119/2021, registered under Sections 379/420 of the IPC, considering the allegations of tax evasion and fraudulent practices related to the transportation of Burmese Battle nut? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that they possessed all requisite valid documents, including a tax invoice and e-way bill, for the consignment of sufari, thereby demonstrating compliance with tax regulations. They contended that their custodial detention was not warranted given the documentary evidence. Revenue's Contention: The State, represented by the PP, Assam, alleged that the petitioners were involved in a business by paying little tax instead of the actual GST. The case diary indicated that the petitioners had shown a lesser value for the sufari during transit, which was a subject to be addressed by the appropriate department.