In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC, the Gauhati High Court examined allegations of cheating and fraud by the accused. Finding prima facie incriminating material against the petitioners, the court held it was not a fit case for pre-arrest bail and rejected the application.
The bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010005412018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 130/2018
1:LOHIT GOGOI S/O- SRI ARUN GOGOI, R/O- LENGARI, P.S- MORAN, P.O- MORAN, DISTDIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 785669
2: BHABANI KUMAR GOGOI @ BHABANI GOGOI S/O- LATE ROBIN GOGOI R/O- ROMAI P.S- LAHOWAL P.O- LAHOWAL DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 78601 VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 02-02-2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By filing this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC the accused/petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Lohit Gogoi and 2. Sri Bhabani Kumar Gogoi @ Bhabani Gogoi apprehending arrest in connection with Dibrugarh PS Case No.
Page No.# 2/2
1282/2017 under Sections 420/406/468 IPC praying for bail.
Perused the records and case diary.
So far the matters in the case diary and as stated by the informant in the FIR that the present two petitioners identified themselves as a Bank employee at HDFC Bank at Dibrugarh and assured the informant to facilitate agricultural loan from HDFC Bank. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the loan was sanctioned Rs. 7,00,000/- as against his account but the present two petitioners withdrawn Rs. 4,00,000/- from the said loan account of the informant without informing him, which was known to him only when he went to pay the installment after obtaining loan. The allegation that the petitioner is cheated, the said informant is apparent.
Upon hearing learned counsel for both the sides and on scrutiny of the case diary, it is revealed that there is prima facie incriminating material against the petitioners.
Therefore, considering the nature of the alleged act on the part of the petitioners, as stated above, this Court finds it not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and therefore, the bail application stands rejected.
Return the case diary to the learned Addl. PP, Assam.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC is maintainable in the facts of the case.
Whether the apprehension of arrest is genuine and sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lohit Gogoi
Bhabani Kumar Gogoi
The State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
