Shambhu Das vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the serious nature of the accusations in the FIR, which involved manufacturing documents and showing fabricated sale and purchase of goods to evade tax. The Court found that custodial interrogation of the accused would be required to unearth the entire modus operandi. Furthermore, the Court opined that the alleged commission of an offence of a serious nature disentitled the applicant to the concession of bail. No grounds for granting anticipatory bail were made out. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shambhu Das, proprietor of a firm registered on the GST portal, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 3727/2019. The FIR, registered on December 9, 2019, by the Inspector of State Tax Unit-B, Guwahati, accused the petitioner of fraudulent sale and purchase of supari using fake documentation to evade GST. A notice dated December 10, 2019, was served on the petitioner for an amount exceeding Rs. 19 Crores, alleging fake invoicing and wrong claiming of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Reports from the Taxation Departments of Delhi and West Bengal corroborated the fraudulent business activities. The petitioner's firm was identified as the entity involved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 3727/2019, registered for offences including Sections 420, 406, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and related GST evasion allegations. The petitioner argued for anticipatory bail, contending that the accusations were of a nature that did not warrant custodial interrogation and that he should be granted relief. The respondent, the State of Assam, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the nature of the accusations, involving fraudulent activities such as fake invoicing and wrong claiming of ITC to evade GST, necessitated custodial interrogation to unearth the entire modus operandi. The respondent emphasized that the alleged commission of a serious offence disentitled the applicant to bail.