Trishna Barman Vs The Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
Summary: The Gauhati High Court considered an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, seeking bail for Smti Trishna Barman. She had been arrested on 20.07.2026 in connection with Case No. CT/GIE/ARST/2026/09 under Section 132(5) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the evidence required for the investigation was documentary and electronic in nature and that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than 33 days. It was contended that her release on appropriate conditions would not hamper the investigation and that she undertook to participate fully and cooperate with the investigation whenever required.
Reliance was placed on the order dated 28.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 2269/2025, referred to in the order as Venney Jan Vs. Union of India. The petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court had observed that where an accused had remained in custody for almost seven months, the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate, the maximum sentence was five years, the prosecution was based on documentary evidence and there were no antecedents, bail would ordinarily be warranted unless extraordinary circumstances existed.
The GST Standing Counsel opposed bail at that stage, submitting that further investigation had been carried out from the interrogation of the accused and, therefore, the petitioner should not be released at that juncture.
After considering the submissions and the material placed before it, the Court held that the petitioner, being a lady, would be entitled to the privilege of bail provided strict conditions were imposed to secure her participation in the investigation process.
The Court accordingly directed release of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 75,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Kamrup (Metro). The CJM was given liberty to impose such conditions as may be necessary to ensure that the petitioner continued to participate in and cooperate with the investigation whenever called upon.
The Court further directed that the petitioner should not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating Authority or the CJM, Kamrup (Metro), without prior written permission from the concerned authorities. Thus, the bail was granted subject to the specified financial and investigative safeguards.
Cases Discussed
- Venney Jan Vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2269/2025 — referred to in the order in connection with the proposition that bail may be warranted in circumstances involving prolonged custody, documentary evidence, a case triable by a Judicial Magistrate, a maximum sentence of five years and absence of antecedents, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. JI Borbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, GST and Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Union of India .
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 for granting bail to the accused person; arrested on 20.07.2026 in connection with Case No. CT/GIE/ARST/2026/09 U/S 132(5) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax, 2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence required for the investigation are all documentary and electronic in nature and the petitioner has languished behind bars for more than 33 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that releasing the petition at this stage, by imposing appropriate conditions would not in any manner hamper or temper with the investigation, and in fact, the petitioners undertakes to participate fully in the investigation process and co-operate with the same as and when required to do so.
5. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the Order dated 28.04.2024, in Cr. App No. 2269/2025 in Venney Jan Vs. Union of India where the Apex Court has observed that when the appellant was in custody for almost 7 months and the case was trialable by a Court of Judicial Magistrate and the sentence is limited to the maximum of 5 years, and the prosecution is based on the documentary evidence, with there being no antecedents, the accused would be entitled to a bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances involved.
6. The learned Standing counsel, GST has submitted that from the interrogation of the accused, the petitioner herein further investigation have been carried out and therefore, the petitioner may not be released on bail at this juncture of the investigation.
7. I have considered the submissions and also the materials placed before this Court and I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner in the present case who is a lady, would be entitled the privilege of bail in the event strict conditions are imposed on her for participation in the investigation process.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 75,000/-, with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Kamrup (Metro).
9. The learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro) shall at liberty to impose such conditions as may be necessary to ensure that the petitioner continues to participate in the investigation process and co-operate with the same as and when called for.
10. It is provided that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial Jurisdiction of the Investigating Authority or the CJM Kamrup (Metro) without prior written permission from the authorities concerned.
