Allowed

Rehena Begum v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC5 Oct 2018AB/2165/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with an IPC 409 charge, the High Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary. The court allowed bail subject to a security bond and conditions regarding investigation cooperation and maintaining contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC allowed with a bond of Rs. 25,000.

Rehena Begum Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010153142018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 2165/2018

¶5

1:REHENA BEGUM

¶6

W/O NURUL HAQUE, GDS BPM KANAKPUR EAST, PS JOYPUR, DIST. CACHAR (ASSAM)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶9

THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M CHANDA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

B E F O R E

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶14

05-10-2018

¶15

By this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, namely – Rehena Begum, has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending her arrest in connection with Joypur P.S. Case No.36/2018 registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Heard Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. MP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

¶17

Case diary called for is received and perused.

¶18

The allegation made in the FIR is that the petitioner remained absent from office

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

without any authority and some records, stamps etc. were also found missing from the office. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in-fact the petitioner was kidnapped and an FIR was also lodged to that effect. The documents annexed with the petition including the statement of the present petitioner, who was a victim in the kidnapping case, also shows that the petitioner was kidnapped.

¶21

Thus, having considered the whole gamut of the matter and the materials in the case diary, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary having regard to the nature of allegation and, accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed.

¶22

It is provided that in the event of arrest of the abovenamed petitioner in connection with the aforementioned case, she shall be released on bail, on her furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. This pre-arrest bail is subject to the following conditions :

¶23

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶24

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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶25

This bail application stands disposed of.

¶26

Send back the case diary.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Rehena Begum v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehena Begum 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

Devid Das Vs the State of Assam

Ajit Singnar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Champawati Chetia Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Harendra Nath Ghosh Vs the State of Assam

Sheikh Moinul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Mohan Boruah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam