Shyama Kant Mishra Vs State of Assam (Gauhati High Court)
Summary: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was lodged on 15.05.2026 by Yakub Ali Bhemat, alleging that the petitioner was involved in cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and fraudulent GST transactions involving proprietors of other companies. The allegations related to transactions during 2024-2026, when the petitioner was stated to have been working with the informant’s company. It was alleged that input tax credit facilities were availed by other companies and that certain consideration was also availed by the petitioner. The petitioner’s son, Deepak Mishra, was also stated to be involved. The petitioner contended that he had left the informant’s company in 2024 and that there was no information regarding the alleged offences during that year. He further submitted that he was not named in the FIR, although he had appeared pursuant to a notice under Section 35(3) and thereafter the police were searching for him. The State opposed the prayer, submitting that the offence of cheating was apparent from the FIR and that the petitioner was connected with the said offence as he had been working with the informant’s company at the relevant time. Considering the submissions and particularly the fact that the petitioner had left the informant’s company in 2024, the Court granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount, subject to conditions requiring appearance before the Investigating Officer, cooperation with the investigation, non-tampering with evidence and witnesses, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER
Heard Mr. N.N. Jha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in 318(4)/316(2)/336(3) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged on 15.05.2026 by one Yakub Ali Bhemat stating inter alia that the petitioner is involved in offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and fraudulent GST transactions between him and proprietors of other companies. It was stated in the FIR that during the years i.e. 2024-2026, while the petitioner was working in the informant’s company, certain transactions were said to have been taken place between him and proprietors of other companies and that input tax credit facilities were availed by other companies and some consideration were also availed by the petitioner. It is also stated that petitioner’s son namely Deepak Mishra is also involved in the incident.
3. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was an employee of the informant’s company had left the company way back in 2024 and although the allegations were during the year 2024-2026 but there was no information regarding the said alleged offence during the year of 2024. As such he submits that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence. He also submits that the petitioner was not named in the said FIR. However, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 35(3) to which he appeared and subsequently police is searching for the petitioner.
4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the offence of cheating is writ large in the FIR and although the name of the petitioner did not find place in the FIR but he was connected with the said offence since at that point of time, he was working with the informant’s company.
5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that the petitioner had left the informant’s company way back in 2024, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the Arresting Authority under the following conditions:
i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of the order.
ii)the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called for.
iii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case.
iv) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority.
6. Petition is disposed of.
