Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040017022025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/123/2025 Smti Santoshi Rai Wife of Shri Ravi Rai, resident of Bogibil No.1, PO Rampur Derurigoan, PS Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur District, Assam VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Hangphoa Sumnyan, Amrit Singh Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the accused person, namely, Shri Ravi Rai, on bail in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 83/2025, under Sections 316(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, Page No.# 2/6 who has been arrested on 03.09.2025. 3. An F.I.R. was registered on 28.06.2025, under Sections 316(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, on receipt of written complaint dated 28.06.2025 filed by one Shri Tajo Parang, proprietor of M/s JZ Enterprise, Police Colony, Naharlagun, to the effect that one Shri Loma Loda, his uncle, has informed him that Shri Ravi Rai and Shri Harka Bahadur Sunar @ Sumit Sunar of Harmuti are looking for a registered firm/proprietor for sub-contract work of supplies. On assurance of said Shri Harka Bahadur Sunar @ Sumit Sunar and Shri Ravi Rai that they will use the Password and ID of his firm for genuine works, he has provided the same to them. On 11.06.2025, Tax Invoice as well as e-way bill of 2 (two) unknown enterprises, namely, M/s SK Enterprises, proprietor Shri Shivendra Kumar of Tinsukia (GSTIN: 18FSGPK9508E1ZH), and M/s Nagar Trades, proprietor Shri Aniket Nagarchi of Jorhat (GSTIN: 18BQDPN3163P1ZB), Assam, sent him a Tax Invoice in which it was found that the same was for supply of cement bags worth of crores in Arunachal Pradesh from Assam. On perusal of Tax Invoices, it is doubted that some fraud might be going on in the name of his GST Account for which the ID and Password were accessed by the above 2 (two) accused persons. On being clarified from the Chartered Accountant, the complainant came to know that the GST account received Input Tax Credit of Rs. 65,71,656/- from unknown source, namely, M/s SK Enterprise and another Input Tax Credit of Rs. 43,39,748/- from M/s Nagar Traders. The Tax Credit Receipt in the GST account was again sold out to another unknown firm, namely, M/s Ananth Enterprises, proprietor Shri Tai Ananth, and M/s Jerang Enterprises, proprietor Shri Thomas Jerang, respectively. It is stated that complainant has visited the GST Office as advised by the Chartered Accountant and the GST Office had blocked Input Amount of Rs. 1,09,11,404/- so that any Page No.# 3/6 fraudulent transaction is avoided. It is also alleged that both the accused persons have made fraudulent transactions using his GST User ID and Password without his consent and not through his bank account and they have made a transaction against his GSTIN only for sale and purchase. 4. Mr. A. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the GST User ID and Password are the exclusive property of the complainant and every transaction requires an OTP which is delivered only to the complainant’s registered mobile number. Therefore, when the user ID, Password and Mobile Phone with digital secret code solely in the possession of the complainant, there is no role or involvement of the accused person. There is no agreement or power of attorney ever been executed between the complainant and the accused person. As such, if there is any misuse of user ID and Password, it is the complainant alone who is responsible. 5. He submits that the accused person is falsely implicated in the case as the accused person is neither the party nor partner and have no relation with any of the firms/enterprises mentioned in the F.I.R. The accused person has no knowledge of any fraudulent GST transaction and he has no GST Account and the Password of the complainant. He submits that the police have arrested the accused person on 03.09.2025 in the case without any preliminary investigation of the offence which is in violation of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it is held that the F.I.R. need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or enquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. 6. He submits that the accused persons have been arrested illegally without Page No.# 4/6 informing the local police and without the transit remand obtained from the competent Court of Assam about their arrest from Harmuti and the accused has been put under detention illegally as it is well settled law that prior to effecting the arrest outside a particular jurisdiction, the police is obligated to inform the local police and secure the transit remand. He submits that in the present case, the accused person has been arrested from Harmuti outside the local jurisdiction and the mandatory guidelines of the law and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been violated while arresting and detaining the accused person in the case. He further submits that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be consider a punishment which violates the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submits that the alleged accused person may be released on bail as the arrest and detention is illegal. 7. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the grant of bail to the accused person, submits that even after arrest of alleged accused, he is not co-operating in the investigation at all and if the accused person is released on bail, there is chances of inducing/threat to the witnesses and also hampering the investigation as the allegation is with regard to fraudulent transaction of GST amount. She submits that there are materials against the accused person which indicates that the accused person along with the co-accused has obtained the ID and Password of GST Account of the complainant. Therefore, there appears to be a prima facie case against the alleged accused with the co-accused and their involvement of fraudulent transaction of using the ID and Password of GST account of the complainant. She submits that since there are other accused(s) involved in the alleged Page No.# 5/6 offence, the alleged accused is not entitled to bail at this stage. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Case Diary. 9. The allegation in the present case pertains to fraudulent transaction for an Input Amount of Rs. 1,09,11,404/- by using the User ID and Password of the GST Account of the complainant. Record reveals that the alleged accused, along with one Shri Harka Bahadur Sunar @ Sumit Sunar, met the complainant at Banderdewa in a hotel where a discussion was made. Thereafter, the complainant has agreed to provide the User ID and Password of his GST Account to run the business legally and accordingly, same was provided to the said accused Shri Harka Bahadur Sunar @ Sumit Sunar. 10. Perusal of the records shows that prima facie the accused persons have used the ID and Password of the GST Account of the complainant for fraudulent transaction of Rs. 1,09,11,404/- with the Tax Invoices from the various proprietorship firms of Assam. It appears that there are many persons involved in alleged fraudulent transaction for which a proper investigation is required. 11. Regard being had to the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the arrest and detention is in violation of the mandatory provisions of law and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that the accused persons were arrested from Harmuti, which is outside the jurisdiction, without informing the local police and no transit remand was obtained from the competent Court, the accused persons were brought to Arunachal Pradesh, which is illegal, to which this Court finds from the records that the provisions of the law with regard to arrest and transit remand have been duly complied with by the arresting authority. Therefore, the above submission appears to be not Page No.# 6/6 correct. Further, since the case appears to have been registered having been found cognizable offence, preliminary enquiry, perhaps may not be required and the person can be arrested without any preliminary enquiry by the police. It is only to the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether the cognizable offence has been committed, a preliminary enquiry is required to be made. 12. Having considered above, I find that the alleged accused person is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage as the accused Shri Ravi Rai, prima facie, appears to be involved in the case and many persons are also appears to be involved in the alleged offence of fraudulent invoices transaction of the GST Account of the complainant. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage. 13. Bail application stands disposed of. 14. Sent back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant