Income Tax Case

GAHC010097322022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1379/2022 KRISHNA BHAMA W/O SRI BALWAN BHAMA, R/O HOUSE NO. 35 A, BONGAON, NEAR INCOME TAX RESIDENTIAL COLONY, P.S.-BASISTHA, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFOREHON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN O R D E R 14.06.2022. By filing this second bail petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, petitioner Krishna Bhama hassought for pre-arrest bail in connection with the Basistha P.S. Case No.211/2022, registeredunder Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the IPC. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl.P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. Also gone through the record and documents annexed, including the earlier order dated 30.03.2022, passed by this Court in A.B. No.659/2022, rejecting the prayer of pre-arrest bail,made by the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner had been mentionedas the Director of different Coal Trading Companies in the earlier bail order, but subsequentlyon being mentioned by the learned counsel, this Court has rectified the same by showing thepetitioner as the Director of the M/s. Vaishno Devi Traders Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that thepetitioner is only the Dormant Director of the said M/s. Vaishno Devi Traders Pvt. Ltd and notat all associated with the affairs of the company. It is her husband Balwan Bhama, who carries out the affairs of the Company and he hasalready been arrested and as such, the custodial interrogation of the presentaccused/petitioner is not warranted. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, Mr. B. Sarma raised objection to the bailprayer, as no new ground is made out by the petitioner, while this Court, on the earlier roundhas dealt with the matter in detail, after going through the case diary, produced by theprosecution. It is also contended by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam that there is no suchconcept of Dormant Director of a Company, as it is not a matter of partnership farm. It is to be noted that this Court has already meticulously gone through the case diary andfinding the present petitioner to be the Director of the said Company and actively associatedwith the affairs of the same, had rejected the bail prayer contending that the petitionercannot rescued herself merely mentioning her as a housewife. Considering all entirety, this Court is of the opinion that there is no new good and cogentground to re-visit the earlier order passed on 30.03.2022, in A.B. No.659/2022, the same isrejected accordingly, at the motion stage itself. JUDGE