Bail Appln./2333/2026 of SRI VINEET KUMAR PODDAR ALIAS VINEET PODDAR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 19 August 2026

ORDER

20.08.2026

Heard Mr. B. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely, Vineet Kumar Podder, who has been languishing in jail hazot, since 04.08.2026, in connection with the Special Task Force PS Case No. 02/2026, under Section 61(2)/ 318(3)/ 319(2)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 340(2) of the BNS, for granting bail.

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Dibya Ranjan Borah, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Circle – 5, Unit – D, Kar Bhawan, on 23.05.2026.

3.1. The essence of allegation, in the FIR dated 23.05.2026, is that fraudulent activities were committed in violation of Assam GST Act and various Sections of BNS, through the creation and operation of fictitious business entities for wrongful availment and false claiming of tax invoices, in the name of non-existence tax payer and also in the name of the firm of the accused person, namely M/s Assam Bitumex; M/s Barrel Bitumen; and M/s Aida Bitumex.

4. Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused joined with the bitumen business of one Mr. Shahbaz and initially worked as an employee in sales and marketing activities and subsequently he started receiving commissions linked exclusively with the sale generated by him, from M/S Aida Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumex; and M/s Aida Bitumex. Mr. Chakrabarty also submits that the accused is neither a proprietor, nor a partner, director or shareholder or authorized signatory, beneficial owner or person responsible for the conduct of the business and also he has no financial interest in the business. Mr. Chakrabarty also submits that the accused was arrested on 04.08.2026 and he was remanded to police custody for five days and remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2026, and that the offence relates to documents and electronic records and the same have already been collected by the I.O. Mr. Chakrabarty also submits that he is innocent and some of the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and that he is ready to co-operate with the investigating agency and will abide by any of the conditions and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition.

5. Per-contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the accused, along with Shahbaz Haider, and Rajesh Kumar @ Pintu Sharma jointly controlled and operated M/s Aida Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumen, and M/s Assam Bitumix since 2021, despite the firms being registered in the names of different persons. The three of them obtained the profit shares being divided equally amongst them, and that the proprietors of M/s Barrel Bitumen (Deepak Shaw) and M/s Assam Bitumix (Jitendra Shaw) had allowed the use of their firms in exchange for a monthly commission of Rs. 5,000 each, indicating that the firms were not independently managed by their registered proprietors and that he and Shahbaz Haider and Rajesh Kumar @Pintu Sharma were responsible for preparing and arranging the purchase and sale bills of all three firms and he was responsible for getting the sale bills made through their CA Ayush Kedia, and he had active participation in the business operations and establishes a financial interest in the transactions of the firms received 10% to 20% of the profits earned from sales of the three firms, thereby establishing his financial participation in the business. Mr. Gogoi also submits that the accused with others, had availed input tax credit of huge amount by fraudulent means and forged invoices, which is detrimental to the national economy. Mr. Gogoi further submits that the investigation is still in the crucial stage and under such circumstances; it is contended to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General.

7. It appears from a perusal of the case diary that the I.O. had collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. Investigation in respect of his involvement is still going on and if he is enlarged on bail at this stage it will cause prejudice to the investigating agency. Moreover, the offence is serious in nature involving huge amount of money and to unearth the conspiracy angle and the role of co-accused his further custodial detention seems to be necessary.

8. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record and the case diary, this Court is of the view that this is not the proper stage to grant the privilege of bail to the accused.

9. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. The Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant