Shahina Alias Shahida Sultana Vs State of Assam And Anr (Gauhati High Court)
The Gauhati High Court allowed the bail application of Shahina @ Shahida Sultana, who had been in custody since 15.06.2026 in Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026, registered under Sections 61(2), 318(3), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS. The FIR dated 23.05.2026 alleged fraudulent activities involving creation and operation of fictitious business entities for wrongful availment and false claiming of tax invoices under the Assam GST Act and various BNS provisions, including firms named M/s Assam Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumex and M/s Aida Bitumex. The accused submitted that she was the proprietor of M/s Aida Bitumex, was not involved in the alleged offence, and that electronic records and evidence had already been taken into possession. She also submitted that she was a woman with a minor child, her husband was in custody, and a co-accused had been granted bail. The State opposed bail, alleging fraudulent availment of input tax credit of Rs. 7,33,61,984/- and contending that investigation remained at a crucial stage. The Court found that the material part of investigation concerning the accused appeared to be completed and held that further custodial detention may not be warranted. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, for the State respondent.
2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely Shahina @ Shahida Sultana, who has been languishing in jail hazot, since 15.06.2026, in connection with the Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026, under Section 61(2)/ 318(3)/ 319(2)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 340(2) of the BNS, for granting bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Dibya Ranjan Borah, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Circle – 5, Unit – D, Kar Bhawan, on 23.05.2026.
3.1. The essence of allegation, made in the FIR dated 23.05.2026, is that fraudulent activities were committed in violation of Assam GST Act and various Sections of BNS, through the creation and operation of fictious business entities for wrongful availment and false claiming of tax invoices, in the name of nonexistence tax payer and also in the name of the firm of the accused person, namely M/s Assam Bitumex; M/s Barrel Bitumex; and M/s Aida Bitumex.
4. mr.Nath, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused is the proprietor of the firm, namely M/s Aida Bitumex and is no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that the case involves verification of electronic records and evidences, which have already been taken into possession by the
IO. Mr. Nath further submits that the present accused was arrested on 15.06.2026 and since then she has been languishing in jail hazot and that she is woman with a minor child and husband is also behind the bar and in fact the husband and his brother operate the firm and that proviso to Section 380 of the BNSS provides for bail to woman and that she is ready to cooperate with the investigation agency. Mr. Nath also submits that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition.
5. Per-contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, has produced the case diary and submits that the accused is the proprietor of the M/d Aida Bitumex firm, which has availed input tax credit, amounting to Rs. 7,33,61,984/-, by fraudulent means and forged invoices, which is detrimental to the national economy and that she knew that her husband operates the firm. Mr. Gogoi further submits that the investigation is still in the crucial stage and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General.
7. It appears that the firm was registered in the name of the present accused and she knew that the said firm is operated by her husband, who is also arrested in this case and she also knew the activities of the firm. It also appears that the present accused has been languishing in jail hazot since 15.06.2026 and some of the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. She is a woman having a minor child and her husband is also languishing in jail hazot in the said case. It also appears that material part of investigation so far present accused is concerned, appears to be completed.
8. In that view of the given facts and circumstances on the record and also considering the period of detention undergone by the accused and balancing the same with the nature and gravity of the offence, as alleged in the FIR, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the present accused may not be warranted, in the interest of investigation.
9. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, the present accused be enlarged on bail.
10. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.
11. The case diary be returned.
