Faruk Alam vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court rejected the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner and co-accused were not cooperating with the investigation and were evading apprehension. The Court emphasized the prevalence of coal theft and carrying coal without GST, which results in significant losses to the state exchequer. To unearth the facts of the case and ascertain the extent of the petitioner's involvement, the Court deemed custodial interrogation necessary. Therefore, the application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed. The case diary was returned, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Faruk Alam, filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 456/2021. The case was registered under Sections 379/468/420/411 of the IPC. The petitioner and co-accused were allegedly involved in the seizure of a coal-loaded truck, which they kept at the place of occurrence. The case diary indicated that the accused were not cooperating with the investigation and were evading apprehension by the police. The Court noted that cases of coal theft and carrying coal without GST were becoming common, causing significant loss to the state exchequer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 456/2021, registered under Sections 379/468/420/411 of the IPC, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the need for custodial interrogation? The petitioner argued for pre-arrest bail, likely emphasizing the grounds typically presented in such applications, such as no flight risk or tampering with evidence. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond the prayer for bail. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued against pre-arrest bail, highlighting the non-cooperation of the accused with the investigation, their evasion of apprehension, and the prevalence of coal theft and GST evasion, which cause substantial loss to the state exchequer. The State contended that thorough investigation and custodial interrogation were necessary to unearth the facts and the petitioner's involvement.