Allowed

Birenjeet Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC3 Dec 2018AB/1902/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail under CrPC 438. After examining the case diary and hearing counsel, the Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and converted an interim order dated 21.06.2018 into an absolute bail order with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order dated 21.06.2018 was made absolute subject to conditions of appearance and non-inducement.

Birenjeet Das Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010134132018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : AB 1902/2018

¶6

1:BIRENJEET DAS

¶7

S/O. LT. BHARAT CH. DAS, R/O. VIVEKANANDA ROAD, SILCHAR-7, W/NO. 26, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B M CHOUDHURY

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 03-12-2018

¶15

Heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused as well as Mr. N Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶16

This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, namely, Sri Birenjeet Das, in connection with Hailakandi PS Case No. 424/2018 under Sections 120B/420/468 of the IPC.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is present along with the case diary.

¶18

Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the interim anticipatory bail order, dated 21.06.2018, the petitioner is co-operating in investigation and before that during the enquiry of the Government. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the petitioner as a

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

Senior Sub-Registrar executed the duty of registration of deeds following official norms and on proper verification of identity of the executants.

¶21

Mr. N Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that although the case diary reveals scanty prima facie incriminating evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner being a Senior Government Officers, who claimed to have done the alleged act as per Rule, his custodial interrogation is not warranted.

¶22

Perused the case diary.

¶23

It appears that the investigation has substantially progressed and at this stage of investigation, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not warranted.

¶24

Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 21.06.2018, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within a period of 10 (ten) days from today and co-operate in investigation; and

¶26

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.

¶27

Return the case diary.

¶28

The Investigating Police Officer is exonerated from personal appearance.

¶29

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Birenjeet Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birenjeet Das 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

Kandarpa Rajbongshi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mrs Hafizun Begum and 3 Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and 3 Ors.

Gauranga Das and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Aschia Khanom @ Ashiya Begum and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Mrigen Sharma and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Gauri Kanta Lahkar Vs the State of Assam