Bhuban Nath Vs State of AP (Gauhati High Court)
Summary: The Gauhati High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Bhuban Nath under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 20/2026 registered under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the informant, proprietor of M/s Kiko Enterprises, had entrusted ₹57 lakh to the accused persons between 25.08.2024 and 07.02.2025 for filing GST returns and paying GST and other taxes. Instead of making the required payments, fake GST invoices and inputs were allegedly generated and furnished, resulting in Government liabilities of ₹3,12,87,855. The materials before the Court further indicated that an agreement dated 09.02.2026 acknowledged receipt of ₹57 lakh and the outstanding Government liability of ₹3,12,87,855, with an undertaking to discharge the liability within one month.
A post-dated cheque for ₹3,12,87,855 was subsequently dishonoured. The prosecution also submitted that an arrested co-accused had stated during investigation that the fake GST invoices were generated by the applicant and that the applicant had failed to appear before the investigating officer despite issuance of notice under Section 35(3). Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the amount involved, alleged use of forged/fake GST invoices, materials collected during investigation, statement of the co-accused and failure to appear before the investigating officer, the Court held that custodial interrogation might be necessary for effective and proper investigation. It therefore declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS and rejected the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Rahul Sensua, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.
2. This is an application filed by the accused/applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 20/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/338/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case as reflected from the First Information Report(FIR) and the documents available is that, the informant being the Proprietor of M/s Kiko Enterprises, Hissam, had entrusted a total sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- to the accused persons including the applicant during the period w.e.f. 25.08.2024 to 07.02.2025 for filing of GST returns and making payment of GST and other taxes on behalf of his Firm. It is alleged that instead of making necessary GST payment, the accused persons generated and furnished fake GST invoices and inputs and thereby, caused financial liabilities to the informant to the tune of Rs. 3,12,87,855/. It further appears from the materials placed before this Court that upon coming to know the outstanding tax liabilities, a deed of agreement was executed between the accused persons and the informant on 09.02.2026. In the said agreement, the accused persons acknowledged the receipt of a total sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- from the informant and also acknowledged the outstanding liabilities of Rs. 3,12,87,855/- towards the Government. The accused persons also undertook the discharge of the said liabilities within a period of 1(one) month from the date of execution of the agreement and in the event of default, the accused persons agreed to pay the said amount with interest. A post-dated Cheque bearing No. 000021, dated 30.03.2026 amounting to Rs. 3,12,87,855/- was also issued to the informant. However, the accused did not comply with the undertaking and the post-dated Cheque issued to the informant was dishonouredd and returned unpaid, resulting in lodging of the present First Information Report(FIR) against the accused persons alleging, cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and dishonest misappropriation of amount meant for payment of taxes.
4. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the applicant is trying hard to arrange the money for repayment to the informant as undertaken by him. It is submitted that the present accused/applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and that if he is protected, he will surely arrange the amount for repayment to the informant.
5. On the contrary, the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, while opposing the bail application, submits that the materials collected during the investigation, prima facie, disclose the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the co-accused Shri Shayam Ghatani who has already been arrested and subsequently released on bail, stated before the investigating officer of the case that the fake GST invoices were generated by the present accused/applicant. It is also submitted that the accused/applicant has not appeared before the investigating officer of the case despite receipt of notice issued against him under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, requiring his appearance and that his custodial interrogation is necessary for proper investigation of the case.
6. Learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, further submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/applicant and therefore, at this stage, the release of the accused/applicant on bail, would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution case.
7. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the Case Diary and the materials available on record.
8. A perusal of the materials available on record, prima facie, discloses serious allegations levelled against the accused/applicant. Further, the allegations is not merely of failure on the part of the accused/applicant to repay the amount, in question, to the informant, but, the specific allegation is that a substantial amount of Rs. 57,00,000/- was entrusted to the accused persons for making GST and other tax payment on behalf of the informant, however, the payment were allegedly not made by the accused persons and instead, fake GST invoices were purportedly generated by the present accused/applicant. The record further reveals that thereafter, a deed of agreement was executed between the parties on 09.02.2026 wherein the accused persons has not only acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 57,00,000/- but also acknowledged the outstanding Government liability of Rs. 3,12,87,855/-. Not only that, the accused/applicant had also issued post-dated Cheque for the said amount and the same was dishonoured which appeas to be a repeated commission of the alleged offence over and again. The record also goes to show that the co-accused who has already been arrested, has allegedly stated during the investigation that the fake GST invoices were generated by the present accused/applicant.
9. All the aforesaid allegations constituted a circumstance requiring further investigation. The Case Diary further indicates that the investigating officer has issued notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to the accused/applicant requiring his appearance but he has failed to appear before the investigating officer of the case.
10. In view of the above and having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the amount involved, the alleged use of forged/fake GST invoices, the materials collected during investigation, the statement of the arrested co-accused implicating the present accused/applicant, and the applicant’s failure to appear before the investigating officer of the case despite issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, requiring his attendance; this Court is of the considered view that the applicant’s custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective and proper investigation of the case.
11. This Court is, therefore, not convinced to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of the provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, in favour of the accused/applicant, at this stage as the accused/applicant has failed to make-out a case for extending the benefit of the pre-arrest bail.
12. Accordingly, the prayer for bail in favour of the accused/applicant is rejected.
13. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in terms above.
14. Return the CD to the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, forthwith.
