Muktar Hussain vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted bail to the accused-petitioner. While acknowledging the prima facie abundance of incriminating material against the petitioner, the Court considered the length of his detention in judicial custody and the substantial progress in the investigation concerning his complicity in the alleged criminal acts. The Court concluded that further continuation of the accused's detention was not warranted in the interest of the investigation. The petitioner was released on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with the Investigating Officer, refraining from inducing or threatening witnesses, and not committing similar offences in the future. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

This is a second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, Muktar Hussain, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He has been in judicial custody for 72 days since May 31, 2021. The petitioner claims no involvement in the export-import business for the past seven months and denies ownership or carriage of the seized coal-laden trucks. The earlier bail application was rejected by the High Court on July 16, 2021. The FIR alleges the seizure of 11 coal-laden trucks near Sutarkandi Integrated Check Post, suspected of carrying illegally stocked or stolen coal, transported using forged documents. The allegations involve illegal coal transportation and export to Bangladesh through irregular means, including non-payment of loyalty, using forged transit permits, showing incorrect origin of coal, under-reporting GST amounts, and stocking coal illegally without permission. The seized vehicles have since been released to their owners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, considering the length of his judicial custody and the progress of the investigation, despite prima facie incriminating material against him? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the accused has been in judicial custody for 72 days and has no connection with the seized coal or trucks, as he is neither the owner nor the carrier. Further detention is deemed unnecessary due to the length of custody and substantial progress in the investigation. The counsel also highlighted that the seized vehicles have been released to their owners. Respondent's arguments: The State's counsel submitted that the case diary reveals illegalities and irregularities committed by the petitioner in cross-border trade with Bangladesh. While acknowledging the release of seized vehicles, the State contended that there is prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner regarding illegal activities in coal transportation and export.