Allowed

Taser Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2018AB/126/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving charges under IPC Sections 120(B), 365, 387, 342, and 379. The court found the FIR story untrue based on the case diary, indicating the dispute arose from a family settlement disagreement. Consequently, the court held custodial interrogation was unwarranted and allowed anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Allowed pre-arrest bail in the event of arrest on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with a surety of the like amount.

Taser Ali Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010003912018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : AB 126/2018

¶5

1:TASER ALI

¶6

S/O- LATE ASUR UDDIN SK, VILL- KHUDIGAON PT-II, P.O- LAKHIGANJ, P.SBILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348

¶7

2: BANAT ALI S/O- MD. RUSTAM ALI VILL- KHDIGAON P.O- LAKHIGANJ P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348

¶8

3: MUHIRUDDIN ALI S/O- KUDDUS ALI VILL- KHUDIGAON P.O- LAKHGIGANJ P.S- BILASIPARA DISTR- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78334

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM GUWAHATI, ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/2

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 01-02-2018

¶17

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the accused petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶18

By filing this pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioners 1)

¶19

Taser Ali, 2) Banat Ali and 3) Muhiruddin Ali apprehending arrest in connection with Bilasipara P.S.Case No.600/2017 U/S 120(B)/365/387/342/379 IPC are praying for anticipatory bail.

¶20

Perused the record and case diary.

¶21

So far the matters in the case diary it reflects that son of the informant married the daughter of one of the accused petitioner and some amount of compensation was received by daughter in law of the informant. There was some dispute over the compensation wherein petitioners also claim some share of compensation from the informant. Due to such serious dispute the present FIR has been lodged by making a different story and the informant subsequently admitted all the real fact and has also sworn an affidavit Annexure 2 that case was filed due to misunderstanding.

¶22

In view of the above, it is found that story depicted in the FIR is not true. That being so, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused petitioners is unwarranted. Accordingly, accused petitioners are allowed to go on pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-each with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority .

¶23

A.B.stands disposed of.

¶24

Return the case diary.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Taser Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taser Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saripa Begum Khan Vs the State of Assam

Shahanaj Aktar @ Shanash Aktar Vs the State of Assam

Golam Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Sultan Mahmud Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Jalil Vs the State of Assam

Bhabesh Chandra Haloi Vs the State of Assam