Varun Goyal Vs State of Assam And 2 Ors

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for setting aside and quashing the complaint dated 10.06.2025, Arrest Memo dated 10.06.2025, Grounds of Arrest dated 10.06.2025, Authorization to arrest dated 10.06.2025, Order dated 10.06.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Case No. CT/ENF/AREST/2025/01; and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 132(1)(b) and Section 132(1)(C) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; along with a prayer to release the accused/petitioner, namely Shri Varun Goyal, on bail, who has been in custody since 10.06.2025, which in violation of the provisions of Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. It is submitted by Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2025 in connection with the aforementioned case, allegedly without proper authorization for arrest and without being informed of the specific reasons for the arrest or the necessity thereof and thus, the arrest of the present petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, the petitioner is liable to be enlarged on bail forthwith. He further submitted that the respondent No. 3 had filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati under Section 132(1)(b) & 132 (1)(C) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘AGST Act, 2017’ or ‘Act of 2017’) praying for judicial custody of the petitioner in connection with Case No. CT/EFN/AREST/2025/01 under Section 132 of 132(1)(C) of AGST Act, 2017 with the allegation that the petitioner’s firm has been passing ineligible Input Tax Credit (in short ‘ITC’) on the strength of invoices without actual supply of goods. Since the petitioner is the proprietor of the said firm, he has been arrested in connection with this case. It is also pointed out that on the same day, the respondent No. 2 issued an authorization of arrest to the respondent No. 3 to arrest the petitioner. However, it is alleged that such authorization was issued without assigning any reasons or recording the grounds of arrest, thereby further vitiating the legality of the arrest.

4. Further Mr. Saraf submitted that the initial allegation against the petitionerwas that he had fraudulently availed ITC amounting to Rs. 4.6 Crores without actual receipt of goods, and had thereby facilitated transactions involving goods worth Rs. 5.3 Crores without any physical supply, resulting in a total alleged amount of Rs. 9.9 Crores and thereby committed an offence under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(C) of AGST Act, 2017. It is further submitted that on the same day, i.e. on 10.06.2025, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter addressed to the brother of the petitioner intimating him that the petitioner had been arrested under Section 69 of AGST Act, 2017 for allegedly availing and utilizing fake ITC without actual receipt of goods in violation of provisions of the said Act and accordingly the petitioner was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati on 10.06.2025 and thereafter he was remanded for judicial custody. He further contended that although the alleged offence carries a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend up to five years, no notice, as mandated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act (corresponding to Section 41A of Cr.P.C.), was served upon the petitioner and as such, the respondents have not complied with the aforesaid provisions, thereby vitiating the arrest and the subsequent proceedings.

5. Mr. Saraf further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, has categorically held that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 272, and any non-compliance of the same would entitle the accused for grant of bail.

6. Mr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that the petitioner is running his business from his permanent place of business situated on 67-A, TR Phukan Road, Guwahati, Kamrup(M), Assam. The petitioner also appeared before the authorities whenever he was directed to appear, i.e. on 09.06.2025 & 10.06.2025. The petitioner has neither fabricated any false invoices nor committed any of the acts alleged against him. He is fully cooperating with the enquiry being conducted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He further submitted that the allegation, as leveled against him in the instant case, is absolutely false and his arrest by the respondent No. 3 is totally unlawful in the eyes of law and accordingly he prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, further that as per sub- section (4) of Section 132 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, only those offences specified under clauses (a), (b), (c), or (d) of sub-section (1) and made punishable under clause (i) of the said sub-section shall be treated as cognizable and non-bailable. As per sub-section (1) of Section 132, it provides that any case where the amount of tax evaded or the input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceed Rs. 500 lakhs, the same shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years along with fine and the said offence shall be cognizable and non-bailable. In the present case, in the grounds of arrest, it has been mentioned that the petitioner allegedly availed ITC to the tune of approximately Rs. 4.65 Crore without receipt of the goods and issued invoices facilitating the passing of ITC without actual supply of goods amounting to Rs. 5.3 Crores and thus, he has committed offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, which is punishable under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act and thereby his arrest was purportedly authorized under Section 69 of the Act. However, Dr. Saraf contends that the tax under this Act is leviable only when there is a supply of goods. Admittedly, when there was no supply of goods at all, the question of levy or evasion of any tax under the Act does not arise. In that context, Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, also placed on a Notification dated 06.07.2022, issued by Principal Commissioner, GST, which has been annexed as Annexure-XI to the petition. Further, in the grounds of arrest, it is clearly mentioned that there was no supply of goods by the petitioner and hence, the question of any evasion of tax amounting to Rs. 9.9 Crore by including Rs. 5.3 Crore as tax does not arise and the respondent No. 3 acted most arbitrarily and in gross violation of provision of Section 132(1) of the Act.

8. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that as per the complaint filed against the present petitioner, it has been alleged that there was fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 9.9 Crores, based on fake invoices purportedly issued by 14 entities located in Assam, Haryana, and Delhi, without actual receipt of goods or services, during the period from April 2023 to May 2025. Further it is alleged that on physical verification of e-way bills, it revealed that the petitioner’s proprietorship firm, M/S Shiv Traders, had availed ineligible ITC of approximately Rs. 4.6 Crores and utilization of ITC of approximately Rs. 5.3 Crores on the strength of Invoices without actual receipt or supply of goods. However, in the charge, as reflected in the complaint, it is seen that as per analysis and calculation, it does not substantiate a tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 Crores. Rather, the amount allegedly availed as ineligible ITC stands at approximately Rs. 4.6 Crores. But simply in order to make the offence cognizable and non-bailable, they included the said amount of Rs. 5.3 Crores thereby aggregating the total to Rs. 9.9 Crores solely with intent to arrest the petitioner in connection with this case.

9. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, further draws the attention of this Court to Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, wherein it is clarified that in cases where there is no actual supply of goods or services in respect of a transaction, no tax is payable on such transaction, and consequently, no demand or recovery can be made in respect of input tax credit (ITC) wrongly or fraudulently availed in such cases. It has been specifically clarified that in the absence of a taxable supply, no tax liability shall arise on the person concerned. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid circular, inasmuch as the grounds of arrest themselves indicate that there was no actual supply of goods. Therefore, in the absence of such supply, the question of tax liability or evasion does not arise, and as such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are unsustainable in law.

10. Dr. Saraf further submitted that in the present case, no assessment carried out by the competent Assessing Officer and the respondent No. 3 acted without any authority of law and in complete absence of jurisdiction, proceeded to arrest the petitioner based on an arbitrary and imaginary computation of alleged tax liability amounting to Rs. 9.9 Crores. It is the settled law that liability of payment of tax, cess, penalty and interest can only be determined after due assessment by the Assessing Authority. He further submitted that in the present case, the Principal Commissioner failed to apply his mind in correct perspective before authorizing the respondent No. 3 to arrest the petitioner and without disclosing the reason to believe and necessity to arrest of the present petitioner.

11. Further it is submitted that “reasons to believe,” as contemplated under Section 69 of the AGST Act, 2017, must be formed by the Commissioner only after the relevant materials, including records of inspection and search conducted under sub-section (10) of Section 67 of the Act, are communicated to him. . Such belief must be based on objective consideration of the materials on record and cannot be formed in a mechanical or arbitrary manner. But, in the present case, that no such “reasons to believe” were ever communicated or supplied to the petitioner, as is required under the law. As such, the authorization of arrest issued by the Commissioner to respondent No. 3 suffers from illegality and not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including his arrest, are liable to be set aside and quashed

12. In that context, Mr. Saraf also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018, decided on 27.02.2025], wherein it has been held that the compliance of Section 41 of the Code is mandatory in nature. But, in the instant case, there is no compliance of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the respondent No. 3 had arrested the petitioner on 10.06.2025 without issuing any notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, corresponding to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. before making any such arrest. He further submitted that in the above referred case of Radhika Agarwal (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court also held that exercise should be undertaken in right earnest and objectively, and not on mere ipse dixit without foundational reasoning and material. It has also been observed that arrest cannot be made to merely investigate whether the conditions are being met under Section 132 of the GST Act and the arrest is to be made on the formulation of the opinion by the Commissioner that ingredients of Section 132 of the GST Act are made out which is to be duly recorded in the “reasons to believe”. Mr. Saraf further submitted that in case of Radhika Agarwal (supra), it has also been held that the CGST Act, 2017 is not a complete Code when it comes to the provisions of arrest for the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would equally apply when they are not excluded by provisions of the Assam Goods and Services Tax, (AGST) Act, 2017. Thus, the applicability of Section 41-A of the Code shall definitely arise in the present case.

13. Dr. Saraf further submitted that as per the complaint itself, the investigation in the present case is still going on and thus, the amount of tax evasion as calculated of Rs. 9.9 Crores cannot also be considered at this stage. He further submitted that since the date of arrest, the accused/petitioner has been in judicial custody and notably, no prayer was ever made by the investigating agency for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the same time, the Investigating Officer never visited to the jail premises for his further interrogation. Accordingly, he submitted that the accused/petitioner may be released on bail at this stage and the petitioner, being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding. Rather he will extend his full co-operation in the further investigation of this case.

14. Mr. Saraf also submitted that the prayer for bail can be considered in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in that context, he also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427, and basically relied on paragraph No. 67 of the judgment, which reads as under:

“67. Human liberty is a precious constitutional value, which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to the edicts of criminal law and procedure. Section 482 recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions of the CrPC ―or prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice‖. Decisions of this court require the High (2005) 8 SCC 21 (2010) 14 SCC 496 (2012) 1 SCC 40 Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2019 decided on 22 October 2019 PART J Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section 482, to act with circumspection. In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies. The public interest in ensuring the due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is one – and a significant – end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally important: the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 was enacted by a legislature which was not subject to constitutional rights and limitations; yet it recognized the inherent power in Section 561A. Post- Independence, the recognition by Parliament37 of the inherent power of the High Court must be construed as an aid to preserve the constitutional value of liberty. The writ of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution. The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects at one level the rights of the victim and, at a more fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring that crime is investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. On the other hand, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower Courts in this country must be alive. In the present case, the High Court could not but have been cognizant of the specific ground which was raised before it by the appellant that he was being made a target as a part of a series of occurrences which have been taking place since April 2020. The specific case of the appellant is that he has been targeted because his opinions on his television channel are unpalatable to authority. Whether the appellant has established a case for quashing the FIR is something on which the High Court will take a final view when the proceedings are listed before it but we are clearly of the view that in failing to make even a prima facie evaluation of the FIR, the High Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty. Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum – the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting.”

15. Further Mr. Saraf also relied on following decisions to substantiate his plea:

1. Natwar Kumar Jalan Vs. The Union of India & 2 Ors. [WP(C)/6821/2024, decided on 18.12.2024]

2. Natwar Kumar Jalan Vs. The Union of India & 2 Ors. [WP(C)/6821/2024, decided on 08.04.2025]

3. Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2025)

4. Shubham Jain Vs. Union of India (Bail Appln./962/2025)

5. Aniket SOVASARIA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. (Bail Appln./1140/2025)

6. Daulat Samirmal Mehta v. Union of India (2021 SCC Online Bom 200)

7. Daulat samirmal Mehta v. Union of India ((2025) 139 GSTR 165: 2023 SCC Online SC 2345]

8. Sunil Kamar Jha Cs UNION Of India ((2021 SCC Online Bom 14101: (2021) 50 GSTL 237)]

9. Makemttrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (2016 SCC Onilne Del 4951]

10. Union of India Vs Makemttrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India ((2019) 11 SCC 765]

11. Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and Anr. ((2014) 8 SCC 273]

12. Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. ((2022) 10 SCC 51]

13. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Amitabh Bachchan ((2016) 11 SCC 748]

14. Jati parshad vs State of Hryana (1993 Supp (2) SCC 297]

15. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, ((1961) 41 ITR 191: 1960 SCC Online SC 10]

16. Madhya Pradish Industries Ltd. Vs ITO ((1965) 57 ITR 637]

17. M. P. Industries Ltd. v. ITO, ((1970) 2 SCC 32]

18. P. V. Ramana Reddy Vs Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Reoresented by Secretary ((2020 SCC Online TS 472]

19. Deep Jyoti Nath Vs. State of Assam, [(2023 SCC Online Gau 667)]

16. Citing the above referred judgment, it is submitted by Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the case registered against the present accused/petitioner is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed. And, in the interim, the petitioner may be released on bail till disposal of the present criminal petition.

17. Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department, submitted in this regard that the contention raised in paragraph No. 3 of the petition filed by the present petitioner that the respondent No. 3 arrested the present petitioner on being authorized to arrest without disclosing the details of “reasons to believe” and what was the necessity in arresting the petitioner. But, from the grounds of arrest issued to the present petitioner, which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the petition, it is seen that the details of the grounds of arrest has been mentioned by the arresting authority at the time of his arrest wherein it is also mentioned that the present petitioner admitted about issuance of invoices without actual supply or movement of goods to various tax payers. Moreover, in the grounds of arrest, it is also specifically mentioned that the present petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/S Shiv Traders and is responsible for availing ineligible ITC of approximately Rs. 4.6 Crores without receipt of goods and for issuing invoices to pass on ITC without actual supply of goods amounting to Rs. 5.3 Crores. As such, the total amount of alleged tax evasion by the present petitioner was estimated to Rs. 9.9 Crores, thereby attracting the provisions of cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 132(1)(i) of AGST Act.

18. Mr. Gogoi further submitted that the authorization of arrest was duly issued by the Commissioner under Section 69 of AGST Act after proper assessment of the case and after considering the “reasons to believe” as required by law. However, he admitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and he was not sought for police remand during his period of custody. Mr. Gogoi also submitted that during the interrogation, the present petitioner had accepted that his firm had issued invoices without actual movement or supply of any goods and he had claimed the ITC on the basis of such invoices. The petitioner also admitted his claim in presence of witnesses and also admitted that the tax invoices, issued by him, amounted to Rs. 5,26,39,756.86/- and he also admitted that his statement was ready over and explained to him at the time of recording. He accordingly raised objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage as the case is still under investigation. He further submitted that he needs some more time to submit on the merits of the criminal petition and will also file objection in that regard.

19. In reply, Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as per Section 69 of CGST Act, an arrest can be made only when the Commissioner has “reasons to believe” that a person has committed an offence specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act. But, here in the instant case, it is the admitted position that the “reasons to believe” has not been recorded by the Commissioner nor it was supplied to the present petitioner. Dr. Saraf further submitted that the accused is in custody for last 15 days and no prayer for his further custodial interrogation has been made and therefore, his custodial detention may not be necessary in the interest of investigation. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend his co­operation in the further investigation of this case if he is granted with the privilege of bail.

20. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition as well as the statement made by the petitioner before the investigating authority on 09.06.2025.

21. Before delving into the merits of the matter or rendering any conclusive finding thereon, it is pertinent to note that certain submissions have been recorded on behalf of the petitioner touching upon the merits of the present petition. However, at this stage, I consider it appropriate to restrict the scope of the present order solely to the prayer for bail, as made by the petitioner. It is also noted that the learned counsel for the State respondent has sought time to file a detailed written objection on the merits of the criminal petition.

22. It is the admitted fact that the respondent No. 2 issued authorization of arrest of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3. On perusal of the grounds of arrest, it appears that certain reasons have been assigned for effecting the arrest. But it cannot be denied that there was no proper compliance of Section 41/41-A of Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 35(3) of BNSS, which are mandatorily required to be followed. From the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radhika Agarwal (supra), it is evident that though the GST is a special enactment, but the same cannot be considered as a complete Code in itself as regards to the provision of search, seizure and arrest and as stated above, the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable unless it is expressly or impliedly barred by the provision of the said Act. But, here in the instant case, it is seen that there is no compliance of Section 41/41-A of Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 35(3) of BNSS, which is mandatorily required to be followed as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI.

23. It is also an admitted position that though the grounds of arrest were communicated to the present petitioner, but there is no communication of “reasons to believe” which ought to have been recorded before issuing authorization letter of arrest. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radhika Agarwal (supra), the requirement of furnishing the “reasons to believe” to the arrestee is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard, enabling the person concerned to challenge the legality of the arrest in accordance with law. But, here in the instant case, though it is stated that the “reasons to believe” were duly recorded by the competent authority prior to issuance of the authorization to arrest, but there is nothing on record to show that the same were communicated to the petitioner either at the time of arrest or along with the grounds of arrest. Such non-communication of foundational reasons vitiates the process and undermines the safeguards guaranteed under law, rendering the arrest procedurally infirm.

24. From the submission made by Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department, as well as from the statement made by the accused/petitioner before the investigating authority on 09.06.2025 and 10.06.2025, it appears that the petitioner’s contention regarding non-service of notice under Section 41 or 41-A of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, prior to his arrest, remains unrefuted by any substantiating material placed on record by the respondents.In the same time, it is also an admitted fact that while the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, but the “reasons to believe” forming the basis of the arrest authorization were not communicated to the present petitioner. Furthermore, it is also a fact that the accused/petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.06.2025, but there was no prayer made by the respondent authorities for custodial interrogation or police remand of the petitioner during his custody

25. In view of the entire discussions made hereinabove and also considering the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove as well as taking into account the period of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), as relied by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary for the purpose of investigation at this stage. Accordingly, this Court finds it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of interim bail to the accused/petitioner till disposal of the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

26. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Shri Varun Goyal, be enlarged on interim bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior permission.

27. List the matter after the ensuing summer vacation on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

28. In the meantime, the state respondents may file their objection, if any, or shall do the needful for production of the Case Diary before this Court on the next date of listing.