Manik Saha And Anr. vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, making the interim bail granted on 09.07.2021 absolute. The Court reasoned that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation, appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed, and provided necessary documents. The forensic and food safety reports, while indicating the supari was unfit for human consumption due to damage and moisture, did not suggest the presence of harmful chemicals or foreign substances that would directly link the petitioners to illegal import or evasion of customs duty. There was also no indication in the case diary that granting anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation or that the petitioners would abscond. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation, provided necessary documents, and the available reports do not conclusively establish the alleged criminal intent or illegality, anticipatory bail can be granted, especially when there is no apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding. The conditions for bail included monthly appearance, not leaving the territorial jurisdiction without permission, not changing residence or place of business without intimation, and not tampering with the investigation or inducing witnesses.

Facts

The petitioners, Manik Saha and Swapan Kumar Sarkar, filed an anticipatory bail petition apprehending arrest in connection with Bongaigaon Police Station case No. 460/2021, registered under Sections 120(B)/413/420/468/471 of the IPC. The FIR alleged the seizure of 140 bags of supari, suspected to be of Burmese origin, from Swapan Kumar Sarkar's residence, and an additional 61 bags from a concealed location. The informant suspected illegal transportation from a neighboring country, evasion of customs duty, and subsequent sale in the local market after altering the supari's appearance. The petitioners, traders in areca nuts, presented trade licenses and GST registration certificates, asserting they have consistently paid their dues and suspect the accusations are due to business rivalry. They had previously been granted interim bail and cooperated with the investigation, providing statements and relevant documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of illegal import and sale of Burmese supari, evasion of customs duty, and potential cheating and forgery. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they are legitimate traders in areca nuts, possessing trade licenses and GST registrations, and have consistently paid all applicable taxes, including GST. They submitted purchase vouchers to substantiate their trade. They claimed the accusations were false and likely a result of conspiracy by business rivals. They highlighted their full cooperation with the investigation and the interim bail granted by the court, stating they had appeared before the Investigating Officer and provided all necessary documents. They also referred to similar orders where anticipatory bail was granted in comparable cases. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, presented the case diary. The investigation was based on the suspicion of illegal import of areca nuts from Burma, evasion of customs duty, and sale in the local market. Forensic reports indicated the presence of arecoline but no harmful chemicals. Food Safety Officer reports deemed the betel nuts unfit for human consumption due to damage by moulds, insects, and high moisture content, not due to harmful substances.