Dismissed

Mrinal Kumar Tamuli v. the Central Bureau of Investigation (H)

Gauhati HC1 Oct 2018AB/2235/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected an application for pre-arrest bail filed by a Railway Officer accused of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that at the initial stage of investigation involving search and seizure, granting bail was not appropriate.

What did the court decide?

pre-arrest bail application rejected; case diary sent back.

Mrinal Kumar Tamuli Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation (H) — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010159142018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 2235/2018

¶5

1:MRINAL KUMAR TAMULI

¶6

S/O SRI BHABEN KUMAR TAMULI, SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER (WORK), OFFICE OF THE DY. CE/CON/SPTR, NF RAILWAYS, DHEMAJI-787057, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (H) REP. BY SC, CBI

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DHAR

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 01-10-2018

¶14

Heard Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SC Keyal, learned standing counsel, CBI.

¶15

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, namely, Mrinal Kumar Tamuli, praying for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with CBI ACB Guwahati Case No.RC0172018A0012 under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶16

The petitioner is a senior section Engineer (Works), NF Railways. An FIR was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 13(2) read with

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the CBI conducted a search and also seized some documents from the possession of the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an honest Railway Officer. Wife of the petitioner is from upper Assam and she got her own property including tea estate etc., which are her ancestral property. On the basis of an FIR lodged by some unknown persons, the search and seizure was carried out by the investigating agency and the petitioner has handed over all documents including the key of the lockers to the CBI and he is willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶20

Mr. Keyal, learned standing counsel CBI, has objected to the bail prayer and contended that the investigation is at a very cradle stage, inasmuch as, after seizure of the documents, the investigating agency is examining the documents seized from the petitioner and for further investigation, search and seizure may be required and as such, it would not be appropriate to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶21

As per the direction of the Court, case diary is also produced and I have perused the case diary which contains the seizure list containing the list of the documents and other materials seized.

¶22

Having considered the nature of allegation and the materials in the case diary, this does not appear to be a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected at this stage.

¶23

The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of.

¶24

Send back the case diary.

¶25

J U D G E

¶26

Smita

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Mrinal Kumar Tamuli v. the Central Bureau of Investigation (H)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrinal Kumar Tamuli v. the Central Bureau of Investigation (H)

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

Montu Saikia Vs State of Assam

Tapan Sarma and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Pintu Ghosh @ Mantulal Ghosh Vs the State of Assam

Sahabuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Amal Krishna Bhattacharyya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Amal Krishna Bhattacharyya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam