Allowed

Sri Sanjoy Kumar Bhowmik v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC11 Dec 2018AB/2732/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted absolute anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a murder case pending investigation. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary as the petitioner had cooperated with police by recording a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order dated 04.09.2018 is made absolute subject to conditions not to hamper investigation and to cooperate as required.

Sri Sanjoy Kumar Bhowmik Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010194902018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 2732/2018

¶5

1:SRI SANJOY KUMAR BHOWMIK S/O- ANANDA KUMAR BHOWMIK, R/O- VILL- BARUNDANGA, P.S. TAMARHAT, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

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

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DAS

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 11-12-2018

¶14

Heard Mr. H. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶15

By this petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Sri Sanjoy Kumar Bhowmik has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

with Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 89/2018 under Section 307 of the IPC (corresponding to G. R. Case No. 1836/2018).

¶18

The Case Diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶19

Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the incident occurred between the husband and wife within their four walls of house and they are living together as husband and wife. Mr. Chanda, further submits that pursuant to the conditions of the interim pre-arrest bail granted by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and has given his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such, his custodial interrogation is not warranted.

¶20

Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Addl. PP, submits that the incident occurred within the house of the petitioner and the informant/ victim and there is no such incriminating prima facie materials against the petitioner requiring his custodial interrogation. Mr. Mishra further submits that the statement of the petitioner has already been recorded by the Investigating Officer and since then, he is co-operating in the investigation.

¶21

Having considered the above aspects of the matter, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not called for in the interest of further investigation in the case and accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 04.09.2018, is hereby made absolute, subject, of course, to the following conditions:-

¶22

(a) that the petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation and shall not tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶23

(b) 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 Police Officer or tamper with the evidence of the case; and

¶24

¶25

Return the Case Diary.

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

With the above direction, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Sri Sanjoy Kumar Bhowmik v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjoy Kumar Bhowmik 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

Dipak Nag Vs the State of Assam

Babul Malakar Vs the State of Assam

Feddus Ali Vs the State of Assam

Pradip Laskar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Wahab Ali and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Nozrul Islam Vs the State of Assam