2025 (10) TMI 1071 - HC - GST

Anticipatory bail granted in alleged GST fraud involving forged documents and fake invoices; sections 120B, 420, 467-474 IPC

Gauhati HC granted anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail to the accused/applicant in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No.182/2024 under Sections 120B, 420, ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - availing fake ITC - fraudulently obtaining a GST ID using a forged rent agreement with a fake seal of the Judicial Magistrate First Class - HELD THAT:- On careful perusal of the Case Diary and the investigation as projected by the police, it prima facie appears that the accused persons had fraudulently obtained the GST ID using forged rent agreement with fake seal of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Changlang along with other forged documents including Aadhar Card, PAN Card and electricity bill and thereby subsequently raised fake invoices with huge amounts defrauding the government exchequer. The main accused is one Shri Ashutosh Kumar Jha, who appears to have relations with the present accused/applicant as can be seen from the correspondence/communication made between them. However, same appears to be a matter of investigation. It is also seen that the accused/applicant has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 20.10.2025 and he is co-operating with the investigation and his statement has been recorded which indicates that the same corroborates with the bank statement and whatsapp conversation with the main accused- Shri Ashutosh Kumar Jha. It is also noted that on being examined and recording of statement, custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant appears to be not required. Thus, the accused/applicant is entitled to be admitted to the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The accused/applicant, namely, Shri Faiz Ahmed, is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 182/2024, under Sections 120B/420/467/ 468/471/473/474 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the interim bail granted to the accused/applicant vide order dated 17.09.2025 is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the accused is entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 in respect of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 and 474 IPC alleged in connection with the FIR. 2. Whether custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary after his voluntary appearance and recording of statement under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 that is said to corroborate with bank records and WhatsApp communications. 3. Whether the material in the Case Diary and Status Report - including alleged fabrication of documents, creation of fictitious firms, flow of forged invoices and corroborative financial/call records - displaces entitlement to pre-arrest bail at the interim or final anticipatory bail stage. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 Legal framework: Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (as invoked) permits judicial exercise to grant pre-arrest protection where appropriate; ordinary principles governing anticipatory bail require consideration of prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of offence, involvement of accused, antecedents, likelihood of custodial interrogation, and cooperation with investigation. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not place reliance on any specific precedent in the record; determination proceeded on the facts and materials in the Case Diary and statutory framework. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the Case Diary, Status Report and materials showing alleged wide-scale fraud (use of forged documents, creation of fictitious firms, fabricated invoices and substantial tax evasion). The Court also considered that the applicant had voluntarily appeared, cooperated with investigation and that his statement under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 corroborated with bank transactions and WhatsApp communications with the main accused. While the investigation prima facie implicates several accused led by the main perpetrator, the Court treated the accused's conduct (appearance and cooperation) and the recorded statement as mitigating factors relevant to pre-arrest protection. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court's holding that pre-arrest bail may be granted where, despite prima facie incriminating material against a wider conspiracy, the individual applicant has voluntarily appeared, cooperated, had his statement recorded which corroborates with documentary/communication records and custodial interrogation is not required. Obiter - Observations about the breadth of the alleged conspiracy and details of transactions are descriptive of the investigation but not determinative beyond the facts of this application. Conclusion: The accused is entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail; interim bail previously granted is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. Issue 2: Necessity of custodial interrogation after recording of statement under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 Legal framework: Custodial interrogation is permitted where necessary for effective investigation; recording of statement under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 and availability of corroborative records reduce necessity for further custodial examination. Precedent Treatment: No precedent was cited; the inquiry was governed by investigation needs and the statutory procedure for recording statements. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the applicant had appeared on his own, his statement had been recorded and that the contents corroborated with bank statements and WhatsApp communications. The Investigating Officer's material and the Status Report indicated thorough examination of the applicant. Given these factors, the Court found custodial interrogation of the applicant to be unnecessary. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a voluntary appearance and recorded statement corroborated by contemporaneous records render further custodial interrogation unnecessary, pre-arrest bail is justified. Obiter - General comments on investigation sufficiency and on custodial necessity vis-à-vis other accused remain incidental to the decision. Conclusion: Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required; this supports grant of pre-arrest bail. Issue 3: Weight of prima facie incriminating material in the Case Diary vis-à-vis grant of pre-arrest bail Legal framework: For anticipatory bail, existence of prima facie evidence is a factor but not an absolute bar; courts balance incriminating material against factors favouring bail (cooperation, antecedents, custodial need, stage of investigation). Precedent Treatment: The judgment does not reference or apply specific authoritative decisions distinguishing when prima facie material should defeat anticipatory bail; the Court applied established balancing principles to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Case Diary and Status Report outline an extensive alleged fraud involving forged documents, fabricated invoices aggregating large sums and coordinated use of multiple fictitious firms. The Court acknowledged that the investigation prima facie implicates the main accused and associates and that documentary and electronic material corroborate those allegations. Nevertheless, the Court treated such prima facie material as a subject-matter of investigation and not conclusive proof against the present applicant, particularly because the applicant had cooperated, had no criminal antecedents, had been examined and because custodial interrogation was found unnecessary. The Court emphasized that relations/communications with the main accused are matters for investigation rather than immediate ground to refuse pre-arrest protection in the circumstances before it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Prima facie incriminating material in the Case Diary, even if cogent as to the existence of a wider fraud, does not automatically preclude anticipatory bail when the particular applicant has cooperated, been examined, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. Obiter - Detailed recitation of the alleged multi-state fraudulent architecture is explanatory; the Court's decision does not adjudicate guilt or the ultimate sufficiency of evidence for conviction. Conclusion: Although the investigation discloses prima facie incriminating material against a network of accused, such material does not outweigh the applicant's cooperative conduct and the absence of need for custodial interrogation; accordingly, pre-arrest bail is appropriate. Cross-references and interconnected points 1. Issues 1-3 are interlinked: the grant of pre-arrest bail rests on the interplay between the investigative material (Issue 3) and the applicant's recorded statement and cooperation (Issue 2), applying the statutory exercise under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (Issue 1). 2. The Court treated the corroboration of the applicant's statement with bank records and WhatsApp communications as both evidentiary and as a factor reducing necessity for custodial interrogation, thereby tipping the balance in favour of anticipatory bail. Final Disposition (operative conclusion) The Court grants the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the applicant, makes the earlier interim bail absolute on the same terms, and dispenses with custodial interrogation; the anticipatory bail application is disposed of and the Case Diary is returned to the Investigating Officer.