Facts of the Case

The petitioners, namely Momtaj Ali @ Momta Ali and Johur Ali, were arrested on 24.09.2022 in connection with Sarupathar P.S. Case No. 45/2022, registered under Sections 120(B), 379, 411, 406, 413 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

They approached the Gauhati High Court seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.

The case concerned, inter alia, transportation of areca nuts, and the FIR dated 23.09.2022 as well as the forwarding note dated 24.09.2022 contained reference to a particular e-way bill disclosing the vehicle in which the areca nuts were to be transported.

Pursuant to the High Court’s earlier order dated 21.10.2022, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a report from the Investigating Officer regarding the genuineness of the GST bills verification report.

The Investigating Officer’s report stated that:

  • the GST bills raised by the seller/vendor, referred to as Annexure-C, were genuine; and
  • E-Way Bill No. 891254843886, generated on 22.09.2022, was genuine.

On the basis of this verification, the High Court considered whether further custodial interrogation of the petitioners remained necessary.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioners arrested in connection with offences under Sections 120(B), 379, 411, 406, 413 and 420 IPC were entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.
  2. Whether further custodial interrogation was warranted after the Investigating Officer’s verification report confirmed the genuineness of the relevant GST bills and e-way bill.
  3. What effect the genuineness of the e-way bill had on the necessity for continued custodial interrogation, particularly when the FIR and forwarding note themselves referred to an e-way bill identifying the vehicle intended for transportation of areca nuts.
  4. Whether the petitioners could be released on bail subject to conditions ensuring their cooperation with the investigation and preventing interference with witnesses or evidence.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Sarupathar P.S. Case No. 45/2022.

The order records that learned counsel Mr. K. Boruah appeared for the petitioners. The decisive factual development before the Court was the Investigating Officer’s verification report confirming that the GST bills raised by the seller/vendor and the specified e-way bill were genuine.

However, the judicial order does not separately reproduce a detailed argument-by-argument submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, to preserve the exact meaning of the order, no additional defence contention should be attributed to them beyond the recorded request for regular bail and the material considered by the Court.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Assam was represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M.P. Goswami.

Pursuant to the Court’s earlier order dated 21.10.2022, the learned APP produced the report from the Investigating Officer regarding the genuineness of the GST bills verification report.

The report placed before the Court stated that:

  • the GST bills raised by the seller/vendor were genuine; and
  • E-Way Bill No. 891254843886 generated on 22.09.2022 was genuine.

The order does not record any separate detailed objection or extensive substantive argument by the State against grant of bail. Accordingly, no unrecorded prosecution argument is being added to this summary.

Court Order / Findings

The Gauhati High Court took specific note of the verification report produced from the Investigating Officer.

The Court observed that:

  1. The FIR dated 23.09.2022 contained reference to a particular e-way bill.
  2. The forwarding note dated 24.09.2022 also contained reference to that particular e-way bill.
  3. The e-way bill disclosed the vehicle in which the areca nuts were to be transported.
  4. The verification report established that the relevant e-way bill was genuine.
  5. In view of the genuineness of the e-way bill, the Court formed the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not warranted.
  6. Consequently, the Court was inclined to release both petitioners on bail.

The petitioners were directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 40,000 each, with one suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhansiri, Sarupathar.

Conditions Imposed While Granting Bail

The High Court imposed the following conditions:

  1. The petitioners must make themselves available to the police, any other investigating agency, or the Court in the present case as and when required.
  2. The petitioners must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or police, nor tamper with evidence.
  3. The petitioners must not overawe, influence or intimidate prosecution witnesses.
  4. The petitioners must not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation or trial.
  5. The petitioners must not misuse their liberty in any manner.
  6. The petitioners must not jump bail.
  7. The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from the date of the order.
  8. They must thereafter mark attendance before the Investigating Officer once every month until such attendance is dispensed with by the Investigating Officer or until filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.

The bail application was accordingly disposed of, and the case diary was directed to be returned.

Important Clarification

This judgment should not be interpreted as laying down a universal rule that the existence of a GST bill or e-way bill automatically entitles an accused person to bail in every criminal case.

The decisive feature in the present matter was more specific:

  • the Investigating Officer’s report confirmed the genuineness of the GST bills and the particular e-way bill;
  • the FIR and forwarding note referred to the particular e-way bill;
  • the e-way bill disclosed the vehicle in which the areca nuts were to be transported; and
  • on those facts, the High Court concluded that further custodial interrogation was not warranted.

Therefore, the case is significant for the evidentiary and bail-stage relevance of verified genuine GST and e-way bill documentation, but the conclusion remained tied to the facts and investigation material before the Court.

It is also important that the Court granted regular bail under Section 439 CrPC; the order did not quash the FIR, terminate the investigation, discharge the petitioners, or finally determine their guilt or innocence.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

·         Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Special powers of the High Court and Court of Session regarding grant of regular bail. The petitioners expressly sought bail under this provision.

·         Section 120(B), Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Criminal conspiracy.

·         Section 379, IPC – Punishment for theft.

·         Section 411, IPC – Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

·         Section 406, IPC – Punishment for criminal breach of trust.

·         Section 413, IPC – Habitually dealing in stolen property.

·         Section 420, IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783332528_1171compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.