Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 25 August, 2021
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010097842021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1856/2021
MANIK SAHA AND ANR.
S/O MAKHAN LAL SAHA, R/O WARD NO. 4, BIJNI TOWN, P.S. AND P.O.
BIJNI, DISTRICT CHIRANG, PIN 783390., ASSAM
2: SWAPAN KUMAR SARKAR
S/O TARANIKANTA SARKAR
R/O VILLAGE CHOWREGURI
P.O. CHOWREGURI
P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON
PIN 783380
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 25.08.2021 Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Page No.# 2/7 Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This Anticipatory bail petition has been filed by the petitioners namely, 1. Manik Saha and 2. Swapan Kumar Sarkar apprehending their arrest in connection with Bongaigaon Police Station case No. 460/2021 under Sections 120(B)/413/420/468/471 of IPC.
3. The aforesaid case was registered on behalf of an FIR dated 26.05.2021 lodged by the informant, S/I, Swapan Kumar Ray of Bongaigaon Police Station.
4. The allegations in the FIR pertaining to seizure of 140 bags of supari which are suspected to be of Burmese origin from the residence of Swapan Kumar Sarkar. The informant suspected that the suparies were illegally transported from the neighbouring country without paying due customs duty etc. and are sold off in the local market in the form of local supari by changing the colour and the texture. In the search continued another 9 bags and the 61 bags of the same suspected Burmese suparies were seized from a make shift location at Souguri paddy field which was kept concealed by the petitioners and his associates.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are Traders in areca nuts i.e. supari and they conduct business through their concerns namely M/S Ramkrishna Stores and M/S Maa Kali Enterprise respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits by referring to Page No.# 3/7 Annexure 2 (page.17) that Bijni Town Committee has issued a Trade Licence to one Manik Saha, son of Sri M. Saha, who is the petitioner no.1 and he carries on his business under the proprietorship firm of Ramkrishna Stores situated in the Bijni Town. A reference is also made to the Registration Certificate under the GST which is enclosed as Annexure 2-A (page-18). The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the annexures in the bail petition to substantiate his submission that the petitioners are in the trade of areca nut for several years and they have consistently been paying all the dues including GST. Therefore there is no illegality in the conduct of their businesses. He refers to annexure 3 A series to submit that the same are purchase vouchers of suparies purchased from the suppliers named therein. Mr. Biswas submits that the petitioners being in the trade of areca nut/ suparies have been falsely accused of the allegations made in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners strongly suspect that the same is a result of conspiracy hatched by the business rivals in their trade. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the interim bail granted by this Court on 09.07.2021 they appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements have also been recorded. They have fully co-operated with the Investigating Officer in respect of the investigation conducted. It is submitted that all the documents and papers relevant for the purposes of investigation are already in the custody of police Page No.# 4/7 and any further documents as may be required will be supplied by them.
6. Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case dairy called for has been received and the same is presented before the Court. Case diary presented is duly perused.
7. From the case diary it is seen that the investigation of police is on the basis of suspicion that the areca nut/supari are being illegally brought from a neighbouring country namely Burma and sold off in the local market and thereby evading customs duty. During the investigation it is also seen that the samples were sent to the forensic laboratory whereby the Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam has opined that there is no harmful chemical found in the sample examined. The result of the examination is as under:
"The exhibit C-37/2021 gave positive tests for arecoline (alkaloid found in areca nut). No other harmful chemical found in C-37/2021."
8. It is also seen from the Case Diary that samples were also sent for examination to the Food Safety Officer through the Health Department. The report of the Food sample opined that the sample of betel nut were not found conforming to the prescribed standards according to Food Safety and Standards Regulations Act, 2011 and are thus unfit for human consumption. However, what is noticed is that the analysis as Page No.# 5/7 reflected in the report does not indicate presence of any chemicals or foreign substance in the sample. The samples are shown to be damaged by moulds and insects as well as the presence of moisture to a great extent as indicated.
9. Under the circumstances perhaps the opinion of the official Food safety department that it is unfit for human consumption is on the basis of the analysis that it is damaged by moulds and insects and not because it contains any harmful substances or chemicals and thereby making it unfit for human consumption.
10. It is also seen that the statements of the petitioners are recorded and they have stated that they are in the business of trading in areca nut/suparies however, they deny that they dealing with any Burmese or supari of foreign origin.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to orders of this Court passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in AB/1657/2021 and AB/1589/2021, whereby this court in similar matters have granted Anticipatory Bail.
12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon due perusal of the case diary presented it appears that the petitioners have been cooperating with the investigation and have appeared before the Investigating Officer in terms of the directions in the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by this court while granting interim bail. The documents necessary for the purpose of the investigation are already in the custody of Page No.# 6/7 the police. Samples of the seized suparies/areca nuts have also been sent for analysis to the forensic and Food Safety department and reports thereof are also available.
13. There is also no entry in the case diary which suggests any apprehension by the Investigating Officer that the petitioners grant of Anticipatory bail as prayed for will hamper the further course of investigation or that they may jump bail and refuse to cooperate with the investigation as and when required.
14. Considering all of the above, this Court of the view that interim bail dated 09.07.2021 have been made absolute and the same is accordingly made absolute. However, the Anticipatory bail granted shall be subject to the following conditions:-
i) They shall continue to appear before the police till completion of the investigation once a month and further cooperate with the police as and when required.
ii) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, without prior written permission from Officer-in-Charge, Bongaigaon Police Station. They should not change their residence or place of business without written intimation to the I/O.
iii) That the petitioners shall not hamper or Page No.# 7/7 tamper with the investigation in any manner; and
iv) That the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer in connection to this Police Station Case.
If any of the conditions are found to be violated by the petitioners then the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the interim bail granted to the petitioners.
15. Anticipatory bail petition is accordingly allowed.
16. Returned the Case Diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant