The Gauhati High Court has refused to grant bail to a man accused of fraudulently collecting over ₹2.44 crore from a businessman on the pretext of depositing GST, Provident Fund (PF), and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) dues, observing that the case diary contained sufficient prima facie incriminating material against him.
The bench of Justice Anjan Moni Kalita has observed the case diary produced by the investigating agency. After reviewing the materials collected during the investigation, the Court found that there existed sufficient prima facie incriminating material against the accused.
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the complainant, Janardhan Deka, alleged that the accused introduced himself as a Chartered Accountant (CA) and gradually gained his confidence by offering to handle statutory compliances relating to PF, ESIC, and GST. Believing him to be a qualified professional, the complainant entrusted him with filing returns and depositing tax and statutory dues on behalf of his business.
Buy Now: Think Before You Pay Cash: 50+ Landmark Rulings on Section 40A(3) Of The Income Tax
The FIR states that, acting on the accused’s directions, the complainant repeatedly transferred substantial sums of money to enable payment of taxes and statutory contributions. Over time, the total amount allegedly handed over reached approximately ₹2,44,12,247, excluding certain additional sums. The complainant remained under the impression that these amounts had been duly deposited with the concerned government authorities.
The alleged fraud came to light when the complainant received a notice from the GST authorities on 20 January 2026. The notice reportedly alleged zero cash tax payment despite substantial business turnover, indicating that the taxes believed to have been deposited had never reached the government treasury. Following this discovery, the complainant lodged an FIR before the Boko Police Station on 1 June 2026, leading to the registration of the criminal case.
During the hearing, the High Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the accused as well as those of the State.
In view of the nature of the allegations and the evidence available at the current stage of the investigation, Justice Kalita held that the case was not fit for the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused and dismissed the bail application.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
