9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022. 3. The said case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Shri Chittaranjan Nath of Tezpur, on 14.09.2022, to the effect that being the proprietor of Pawan Enterprise, and a registered contractor of N.F. Railway, Maligaon and in connection with construction work he has submitted bills to the Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer (Con.), N.F. Railway, Maligaon. Then the Addl. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Dibrugarh has raised a demand of Rs. 48,43,034/ vide letter No. 23.07.2021. But, service tax is not required to be paid and N.F. Railway also issued a certificate to that effect. Thereafter, being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise Customs, Guwahati against such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the accused is entitled to be released on bail as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577. Mr. Rajganesh further submits that on account of non compliance of the provision of section 41A Cr.P.C. this court has released one accused on bail in BA No. 1940/2022 vide order dated 07.09.2022, and that the accused is behind the bar for last 42 days and his further custodial detention may not be required and therefore, contended to allow the petition. 7. On the other hand, Mr. M. Haloi, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI, has opposed the petition and producing the case diary before this court submits that the Investigating Officer has collected suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he I.O. has not complied with the provision of section 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. before effecting arrest of the accused, and as such there is clear violation of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. (viii) Though Mr. Haloi, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI has made an attempt to explain as to why the same could not be complied with yet such an explanation is found to be far from satisfactory. 9. It is to be mentioned here that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under section 7 of the P.C. Act may extend to five years and for the offence under section 7A of the P.C. Act may extend to 7 years. Nothing has been recorded by the arresting authority as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
